Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DIFFERENT LEVELS OF RECURSION --- DD specifies non-terminating
 behavior to HHH
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:33:46 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <voslvb$j9kr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <voah0r$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$2@dont-email.me> <vosbak$h569$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:33:48 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9378b53ae005e86e1e1a15d47b99d642";
	logging-data="632475"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18XdLj42JQbzo81LZA6V+K3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JXfPgsQI6xgWS2zbSCBVBWtbPX8=
In-Reply-To: <vosbak$h569$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250216-0, 2/15/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 10136

On 2/16/2025 3:32 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.

When any aspect of a recursive invocation chain does not terminate
normally then this chain does specify non-halting behavior.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer