Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 07:14:06 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 161
Message-ID: <vosoau$jvi4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <voambu$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <voslvb$j9kr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:14:07 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c928bd9eb52e5cb5acf316a3ad4e5e6d";
	logging-data="654916"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jHyuWgEQRKpgmQs0x9hpA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:awEyISml3uZDJ9QEQcuMwpzKZNI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <voslvb$j9kr$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250216-0, 2/15/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 10478

On 2/16/2025 6:33 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========