Path: ...!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: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 14:46:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <vvlm2k$30idv$1@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> <vvkffn$2m36t$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvl84g$2rl0l$10@dont-email.me>
 <c0b0db5de5c7f7ccb24b06d44108deb41fbde8dc@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 21:46:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b8226b0a928845ead4a9adb4b3b34c7d";
	logging-data="3164607"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+0I2GbQnOxWsBVYcygWRXZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:L5EQC1M20jlSkEv/T4Qmy9zK6FU=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250509-6, 5/9/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <c0b0db5de5c7f7ccb24b06d44108deb41fbde8dc@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 5011

On 5/9/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/9/25 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/9/2025 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> 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. 
>>
>> When 1 or more statements of DDD are correctly simulated
>> by HHH this correctly simulated DDD cannot possibly reach
>> its own "return statement" final halt state.
> 
> 
> But HHH can not correctly emulate this input (the code of just DDD) past 
> the call instruction and remain a pure function, as it hasn't been given 
> that code.
> 

We have not begun to get into any of those points.
We are only asking can DDD correctly simulated
by any HHH that can exist ever reach its own
"return" instruction.


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