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 23:27:06 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <vvmkiq$3bds9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@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> <vvm69v$34ivd$1@dont-email.me>
 <87msblcg60.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvmggq$3a34p$6@dont-email.me>
 <d07ca13226ecc137711110fd5cee56f39c2173a8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 06:27:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7be348abb5bc2ec0a70724586a3ca680";
	logging-data="3520393"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/P/GCIuJ8M3bNNwDC4fobI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:n9HS0Luvn/m7BmTFO78KFDJtJso=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250509-6, 5/9/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <d07ca13226ecc137711110fd5cee56f39c2173a8@i2pn2.org>

On 5/9/2025 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/9/25 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/9/2025 10:12 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>> On 09/05/2025 03:23, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> Depends on what you've picked up on.
>>>>
>>>> Do you get that HHH's simulation is a /partial/ simulation?  HHH is
>>>> free to simulate a few x86 instructions of DDD, and then simply
>>>> abandon the simulation and return.  Since such a simulation is
>>>> obviously NOT equivalent to a direct call to DDD, and above you argue
>>>> that it is, I'd say you've missed that.
>>>
>>> I have not read the vast majority of olcott's post here.  For most
>>> of the recent discussion I had with him, there was no mention of
>>> partial simulation.  olcott finally said something about simulating
>>> just a few instructions, but at the same time he finally indicated
>>> that understanding his arguments would require an understanding of
>>> x86 machine and/or assembly language.  That's when I bailed out.
>>>
>>> A "correct simulation", as I understand the term, would require fully
>>> simulate the execution of DDD.  If DDD never halts, its simulation never
>>> halts.  olcott seems to think that he's found a way around this that's
>>> relevant to the Halting Problem, but I withdrew before getting to that
>>> point.
>>>
>>
>> It only need be a correct simulation until HHH sees the
>> repeating pattern that would cause itself to never terminate.
> 
> Right, but that pattern needs to be based on the fact that HHH is a 
> program that can abort its simulation, and in fact WILL.
> 
>>
>> The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks
>> agreed that I could quote his agreement with my words.
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>      would never stop running unless aborted then
>>
>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>
>>
> 

*simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
means determining what would happen if this H never aborted.




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