Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vue5ht$27hl3$5@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Using Finite String Transformations Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 22:05:16 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Message-ID: <vue5ht$27hl3$5@dont-email.me> References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vto7qu$267in$1@dont-email.me> <k%RLP.1232047$Xb1.539402@fx05.ams4> <vtorpb$2uac$1@news.muc.de> <vtp32o$2vb5o$1@dont-email.me> <vtqpt5$17ns$1@news.muc.de> <vtrhbc$16pbv$2@dont-email.me> <vtrk7l$t44$1@news.muc.de> <vtrmfa$1be3n$1@dont-email.me> <vtvkgo$vjvi$1@dont-email.me> <vu2042$34l74$1@dont-email.me> <vu519u$1s5f9$1@dont-email.me> <vu6aha$2vn05$3@dont-email.me> <vu6dk4$2fq2$1@news.muc.de> <vu6knm$394oo$1@dont-email.me> <vu8cgm$2p5e$1@news.muc.de> <vu8gml$v0qa$2@dont-email.me> <vu8m2h$vn9b$2@dont-email.me> <vu8pr1$13jl5$8@dont-email.me> <vu8qo3$vn9b$4@dont-email.me> <vu8ruc$13jl5$12@dont-email.me> <vuaaae$2lbp9$2@dont-email.me> <zIWdnaZKufSzmpT1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <vub1go$3clpn$3@dont-email.me> <HcWcnf7heZkdG5T1nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <vucbg5$mukj$1@dont-email.me> <vucro3$148pf$2@dont-email.me> <vudtd9$23cvv$1@dont-email.me> <vue2k4$27hl3$2@dont-email.me> <vue4gn$28iho$4@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 22:05:17 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2e638f62f9520c381ea45971c85c834e"; logging-data="2344611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+S5AyJoKE9gx7GqILuS/JW" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:We4apvp0zqaHfMiewoI0cTDNgPs= Content-Language: nl, en-GB In-Reply-To: <vue4gn$28iho$4@dont-email.me> Op 24.apr.2025 om 21:47 schreef olcott: > On 4/24/2025 2:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 24.apr.2025 om 19:46 schreef olcott: >>> On 4/24/2025 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 24.apr.2025 om 05:34 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 4/23/2025 7:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ...because HHH stops simulating before reaching that step in the >>>>>> computation. Note that I said >>>>>> >>>>>> MT: Both traces were of course /identical/, >>>>>> *up to the point where HHH stops simulating* >>>>>> >>>>>> So I was factually correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It *is not* up to the point where HHH stops simulating. >>>>> >>>>> It is up to the point where the simulated versus directly >>>>> executed calls HHH(DD). >>>>> >>>> That is exactly the same point. If not, show the difference in the >>>> traces before that point. >>> >>> As soon as the directly executed DD calls HHH(DD) this >>> call immediately returns. >>> >>> When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) then HHH emulates >>> DD and also emulates itself emulating DD. This is one >>> whole recursive emulation than the directly executed >>> DD can possibly get to. > >> Again a lot of words, which hide that you cannot show where the traces >> differ up to that point. > > THEY DIFFER BY THE EMULATED DD REACHES RECURSIVE EMULATION > AND THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED DD NEVER DOES. > No, they both reach a finite recursion, but the HHH aborts and the direct execution does not abort. That difference, however, is not visible in the trace up to that point.