Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 10:47:51 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vvkffn$2m36t$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgqgl$15i5e$27@dont-email.me>
 <vvgr22$1ag3a$2@dont-email.me> <vvgt36$1auqp$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvgtbe$1b0li$1@dont-email.me> <vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvh0t2$1b939$1@dont-email.me> <vvhap5$1hp80$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhf20$1ihs9$1@dont-email.me> <vvhfnd$1hvei$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvil99$1ugd5$1@dont-email.me> <vvinvp$1vglb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vviv75$222r6$1@dont-email.me> <vvj1fp$22a62$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvj2j6$23gk7$1@dont-email.me> <as9TP.251456$lZjd.93653@fx05.ams4>
 <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjc9b$27753$1@dont-email.me>
 <87ecwyekg2.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjg6a$28g5i$3@dont-email.me>
 <d577d485d0f5dfab26315f54f91eb84f25eecc40@i2pn2.org>
 <87bjs2cyj6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 10:47:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="effaaa99691bef49d0e396f91c654de7";
	logging-data="2821341"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zuYmVt1H6io1+cr1YLzKO"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QAjHnFgXMvAkOvtkTONMJCiu3cQ=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <87bjs2cyj6.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>

Op 09.mei.2025 om 04:23 schreef Keith Thompson:
> Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> writes:
>> On 5/8/25 7:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> [...]
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>     return;
>>> }
>>> We don't need to look at any of my code for me
>>> to totally prove my point. For example when
>>> the above DDD is correctly simulated by HHH
>>> this simulated DDD cannot possibly reach its own
>>> "return" instruction.
>>
>> And thus not correctly simulatd.
>>
>> Sorry, there is no "OS Exemption" to correct simulaiton;.
> 
> Perhaps I've missed something.  I don't see anything in the above that
> implies that HHH does not correctly simulate DDD.  Richard, you've read
> far more of olcott's posts than I have, so perhaps you can clarify.
> 
> If we assume that HHH correctly simulates DDD, then the above code is
> equivalent to:
> 
>      void DDD()
>      {
>        DDD();
>        return;
>      }
> 
> which is a trivial case of infinite recursion.  As far as I can tell,
> assuming that DDD() is actually called at some point, neither the
> outer execution of DDD nor the nested (simulated) execution of DDD
> can reach the return statement.  Infinite recursion might either
> cause a stack overflow and a probable program crash, or an unending
> loop if the compiler implements tail call optimization.
> 
> I see no contradiction, just an uninteresting case of infinite
> recursion, something that's well understood by anyone with a
> reasonable level of programming experience.  (And it has nothing to
> do with the halting problem as far as I can tell, though of course
> olcott has discussed the halting problem elsewhere.)
> 
> Richard, what am I missing?
> 

What you are missing is that the next step of olcott is to say that when 
he uses the 'exact same HHH, with only some extra code to abort the 
simulation', it is still an infinite recursion. He does not understand 
that adding the abort code makes the behaviour fundamentally different. 
It is difficult for him to understand, because he refuses to use 
different names for the different versions of HHH, because he dreams 
that they are al exactly the same (except for small changes).