Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 13:29:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <v5usj6$16k0l$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v5ejau$1iq57$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5eup8$1lar1$2@dont-email.me> <v5f1nm$1lp16$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5f246$1m2fl$1@dont-email.me> <v5f3fg$1lp16$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5f3j8$1m2fl$2@dont-email.me> <v5f54f$1lp16$3@dont-email.me>
 <v5f5sd$1mcif$1@dont-email.me> <v5ght9$21jrt$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5h558$24jbd$7@dont-email.me> <v5jcas$2m18t$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5k7ju$2qsdr$5@dont-email.me> <v5mcvo$1cgj0$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5mklg$3cibm$7@dont-email.me> <v5mo8a$1d3t3$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5mqge$3e4fd$2@dont-email.me> <v5msjt$1d3t3$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v5mtba$3elj0$1@dont-email.me> <v5n2ah$1d3t3$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5n2sk$3fm1k$1@dont-email.me> <v5po6i$1h5u1$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5pp9m$2jk8$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5p4$1irrf$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5s4f4$jvgt$3@dont-email.me> <v5tp92$vsqr$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5u94l$12udb$5@dont-email.me> <v5uec2$12qkb$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5uesa$145ld$2@dont-email.me> <v5ujbj$1na1q$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5ujk7$152mc$1@dont-email.me> <v5urlj$16atu$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 20:29:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f83257e6e5a87f489aa8241c55498376";
	logging-data="1265685"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19syiOo5qHdOSSjaNbWzdt0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Y93HHRBAzLLDjkkEE2qBteQOoFQ=
In-Reply-To: <v5urlj$16atu$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5493

On 7/1/2024 1:14 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 01.jul.2024 om 17:56 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/1/2024 10:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:35:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 7/1/2024 9:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 01.jul.2024 om 14:57 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 3:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Unless the outer HHH aborts its simulation after some fixed number of
>>>>>> correct emulations or none of the HHH ever aborts and HHH never stops
>>>>>> running.
>>>>> But that does not make the result of the abort correct.
>>>>> Not aborting will loop infinitely.
>>>>       If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D 
>>>> until
>>>>       H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop
>>>>       running unless aborted
>>> If. D does stop running though, because the H that it calls aborts the
>>> recursive emulation in order to be a decider.
>>>
>>
>> *In each of the following cases the abort criteria has been met*
> 
> Again a claim without evidence.
> If true, the abort criteria are incorrect.

The #1 best selling author of theory of computation textbooks is wrong?
The #1 best selling author of theory of computation textbooks is wrong?
The #1 best selling author of theory of computation textbooks is wrong?

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/

<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>


So you don't even know what an infinite loop is?

> The last one does not need to be aborted, because it returns after N 
> cycles of simulations, when the simulated HHH aborts and returns.
> Only infinite simulations need to be aborted.
> Is that too difficult to understand?
> Your thinking is running in void circles:
> Because HHH aborts you think it is an infinite recursion and because you 
> think HHH is doing an infinite recursion you think it needs to be aborted.
> But that is incorrect. The correct reasoning is:
> Because HHH aborts, it is not an infinite recursion and because there is 
> no infinite recursion no abort is needed.
> The simulation of an aborting HHH does not need to be aborted. Only the 
> simulation of a non-aborting HHH needs to be aborted.
> This proves that neither an aborting HHH, not a non-aborting HHH is able 
> to correctly simulate itself. (Although they might simulate each other.)
> 
>>
>> void Infinite_Loop()
>> {
>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>> {
>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>> }
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>    HHH(DDD);
>> }
>>
> 
> void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
>    if (N != 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
> }
> 
> This is equivalent to you HHH that simulates N cycles.
> No abort needed.

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