Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 10:57:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <vvl8kc$2rl0l$13@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgq6o$1acph$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>
 <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me> <87a57mek8r.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjgh7$28g5i$4@dont-email.me> <87seled0zy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjobj$28g5i$11@dont-email.me> <vvjrv2$2gnq4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvjt4b$2go7p$1@dont-email.me>
 <2b99f70ab35ec939ead52ef88135a2f39e141ad2@i2pn2.org>
 <vvl5pp$2rl0l$4@dont-email.me>
 <e489448191eedf4b7ada69d2d59af088a4dc6711@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 17:57:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b8226b0a928845ead4a9adb4b3b34c7d";
	logging-data="3003413"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+13uHFDCDH8svxAZ3MuBaK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MsjOoRV+EeV0lcn3nU8y9ZNqemY=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <e489448191eedf4b7ada69d2d59af088a4dc6711@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250509-2, 5/9/2025), Outbound message

On 5/9/2025 10:47 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 09 May 2025 10:08:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 5/9/2025 4:48 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Thu, 08 May 2025 22:34:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 5/8/2025 10:14 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 09/05/2025 03:13, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/2025 8:30 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2025 6:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> His simulation is in fact a single-stepped x86 instruction
>>>>> simulation, where the stepping of each x86 instruction is under the
>>>>> HHH's control. HHH can continue stepping the simulation until its
>>>>> target returns, in which case the situation is logically just like
>>>>> direct call, as you have described.  Or HHH could step just 3 x86
>>>>> instructions (say) and then decide to return (aka "abort" its
>>>>> simulation).  Let's call that /
>>>>> partial/ simulation in contrast with /full/ simulation which you've
>>>>> been supposing.
>>>> A full simulation of infinite recursion?
>>>> I am only doing one tiny idea at a time here.
>>> Yeah, so not a full simulation.
>> Didn't you know this?
>> It is incorrect for a simulating termination analyzer to do a full
>> simulation of a non-halting input.
>>
>>>>>>> In practice, the program will likely crash due to a stack overflow,
>>>>>>> unless the compiler implements tail-call optimization, in which
>>>>>>> case the program might just run forever -- which also means the
>>>>>>> unnecessary return statement will never be reached.
>>>>>> Yes you totally have this correctly.
>>>>>> None of the dozens of comp.theory people could ever achieve that
>>>>>> level of understanding even after three years. That is why I needed
>>>>>> to post on comp.lang.c.
>>>>> Everybody on comp.theory understands this much.
>>>> No one here ever agreed that when 1 or more instructions of DDD are
>>>> correctly simulated by HHH that DDD cannot possibly reach its own
>>>> "return" instruction.
>>> That's wrong as written. HHH cannot simulate DDD returning in a finite
>>> number of instructions, it takes infinitely many.
>> HHH can simulate 1 or more instructions of DDD,
>> this is not actually logically impossible.
>> When HHH does correctly simulate 1 or more instructions of DDD then DDD
>> never reaches its "return statement" final halt state.

> HHH simulates DDD returning only in an infinite number of steps.
> 

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

When 1 or more statements of DDD are correctly
simulated by HHH then this correctly simulated
DDD cannot possibly reach its own “return statement”.


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