Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DIFFERENT LEVELS OF RECURSION --- DD specifies non-terminating
 behavior to HHH
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 10:32:04 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <vosbak$h569$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <vo9o3h$gu6t$2@dont-email.me>
 <voah0r$m3dj$6@dont-email.me> <voambu$ng5r$2@dont-email.me>
 <voamvc$nv62$1@dont-email.me> <voatki$p4au$2@dont-email.me>
 <voau7d$p4sc$2@dont-email.me> <voavuf$p4au$4@dont-email.me>
 <vob15v$ptj9$1@dont-email.me>
 <e3693316b91f4bd357aa26a12ebd469086c11c65@i2pn2.org>
 <vocpt8$16c4e$5@dont-email.me>
 <7ad847dee2cf3bc54cddc66a1e521f8a7242c01f@i2pn2.org>
 <vod3ft$18eoa$1@dont-email.me>
 <50488790b3d697cccde5689919b1d1d001b01965@i2pn2.org>
 <vodrkt$1d1gu$1@dont-email.me>
 <cdaa950d75c0b258288974055228e93f38067535@i2pn2.org>
 <voft9v$1rkco$1@dont-email.me>
 <e351c3a68fe9fffc21c6b82a50743305af794dd0@i2pn2.org>
 <vojrqp$2oikq$3@dont-email.me>
 <ffb46665a51356faf0fa3b56db966a31812e8134@i2pn2.org>
 <vokon8$2t882$1@dont-email.me> <vol0mf$2ulu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1q4$34osr$3@dont-email.me>
 <bddf68f22f586b71856518082c6268a78db30d34@i2pn2.org>
 <vondnm$3ffar$2@dont-email.me> <vonhvr$3g196$2@dont-email.me>
 <vormap$ea63$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 10:32:05 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ed88295eddf76fadd43b844d44533dce";
	logging-data="562377"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wLxXEa4sKFApCRhEM1xDS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f58JemyBDjGVz6LEuoUKhcIVeCU=
In-Reply-To: <vormap$ea63$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 9411

Op 16.feb.2025 om 04:33 schreef olcott:
> On 2/14/2025 7:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 14.feb.2025 om 13:42 schreef olcott:
>>> On 2/14/2025 3:36 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:12:52 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 2/13/2025 8:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 13.feb.2025 om 13:31 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 12 Feb 2025 22:18:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 2:05 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:19:11 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 9:23 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:38:37 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 2:48 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 08:46:21 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 6:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 10 Feb 2025 06:02:48 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/10/2025 5:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Feb 2025 13:54:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 1:33 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 20:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 12:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 18:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 10:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 16:18 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2025 2:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 09.feb.2025 om 07:10 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 15:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2025 3:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 08.feb.2025 om 06:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/25 8:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/6/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which proves that HHH fails to make a correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision about DD's halting behaviour. All 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods (direct execution,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation by a world class simulator, etc.) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that DD halts. But HHH fails to see it. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with sufficient understanding of programming 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HHH is not correctly programmed when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts one cycle before the simulation would 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace only shows that HHH is unable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to complete its simulation, because HHH is unable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to simulate itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that Olcott does not even understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this simple proof that HHH produces false 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negatives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is unable to simulate itself up to the normal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, in other words, Olcott denies verified facts. HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generates false negatives, as is verified in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                int main() {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                  return HHH(main);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but he denies it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He lacks the ability to accept simple verified facts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which he tries to hide with a lot of irrelevant 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that main cannot possibly be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH until its normal 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, which proves that HHH is unable to simulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this was true then you could point out exactly where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is supposed to be a decider, i.e. halt and return the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct value.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH(DD) always halts and returns a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct value as soon as it correctly determines that its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We were talking about HHH(HHH). If the outer HHH halts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to spec, so does the inner, because it is the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore it can’t report „non-halting” and be correct. If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the inner HHH doesn’t halt, it is not a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not going to ever talk about that.
>>>>>>>>>> Oh goody, you’re never getting anywhere if you reject 
>>>>>>>>>> corrections.
>>>>>>>>> I reject infinite deflection away from the point. The absolute
>>>>>>>>> single-mined focus point is that DD correctly simulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>> cannot possible terminate normally.
>>>>>>>> That IS the point. DD does nothing else than call HHH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since there is a 5% chance that the treatment I will have next 
>>>>>>>>> month
>>>>>>>>> will kill me and this treatment is my only good chance I will
>>>>>>>>> totally ignore anything that diverges from the point.
>>>>>>>> Ok, I will wait a month then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyone that knows the C language sufficiently well knows that DD
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, which shows the limitation of HHH which makes that it cannot
>>>>>> properly decide about its input, because  it must abort the correct
>>>>>> simulation before it sees that the correct simulation terminates
>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The correct simulation is only the one that it sees by definition. it
>>>>> maps ITS INPUT TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS INPUT.
>>>>> All of the people that think it should map the behavior of a non-input
>>>>> have always been wrong.
>>>> What is the non-input?
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    DD();    // Is not an input to HHH
>>>    HHH(DD)  // Is an input to HHH
>>> {
>>>
>>>> The input is DD, and its behaviour is that it halts.
>>>> HHH’s simulation is not correct by definition.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What is the difference in the finite string that describes the first 
>> DD and the finite string that describes the second DD?
> 
> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
> instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
> 
> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading

.... olcott into believing that the simulated recursion shows non-halting 
behaviour.