Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 12:54:25 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 151 Message-ID: <100pk52$1tgj$2@dont-email.me> References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me> <100ag73$g1r8$1@dont-email.me> <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me> <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me> <221167c1bbedbbda1934b12f6b2c72de2c3a1f78@i2pn2.org> <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me> <100dedr$15dil$3@dont-email.me> <771e0f3f36c9914146f675bc9e2c1c0e7903c116@i2pn2.org> <100dfc8$15qbo$1@dont-email.me> <35c9fb020e868823c3e46c006d9ac4698eaf4f82@i2pn2.org> <100dl6g$16vdn$1@dont-email.me> <100dst7$18epo$1@dont-email.me> <100f18f$1iree$1@dont-email.me> <100gvv6$22oen$2@dont-email.me> <100h9le$24iha$1@dont-email.me> <100i43k$292ko$2@dont-email.me> <100if5d$2bf5g$1@dont-email.me> <100j8tq$2gba4$1@dont-email.me> <100jcie$2kg97$1@dont-email.me> <0be93ee0ee1eec62bdfbfe002ac40b5bdd4736a5@i2pn2.org> <100jfsu$2l8jc$1@dont-email.me> <100laku$30b4k$6@dont-email.me> <100lat8$30aak$7@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 12:54:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="63676ddd724a1d0d4fd2400ecdbb31f2"; logging-data="62995"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fKosCIJ5kViZ4A+ZeF+3z" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:5XD8aEO9FZg7SHGwOThGF8kgWOM= Content-Language: nl, en-GB In-Reply-To: <100lat8$30aak$7@dont-email.me> Op 21.mei.2025 om 21:52 schreef olcott: > On 5/21/2025 2:47 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 21.mei.2025 om 05:05 schreef olcott: >>> On 5/20/2025 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/20/25 10:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/20/2025 8:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>> On 20/05/2025 18:46, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 20.mei.2025 om 16:37 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 5/20/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-20 04:20:54 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that we are only evaluating whether >>>>>>>>>> or not HHH/DDD meets this above criteria? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do understand that the meaning of the behaviour is not mentioned >>>>>>>>> in the creteria and is therefore irrelevant, an obvious >>>>>>>>> consequence >>>>>>>>> of which is that your "WRONG!" above is false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *H correctly simulates its input D until* >>>>>>>> specifies that HHH must simulate DDD according >>>>>>>> to the meaning of the rules of the x86 language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The meaning of every step of the behavior is >>>>>>>> precisely specified by the x86 language. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04 >>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp >>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *H correctly simulates its input D* >>>>>>>> 00002172 00002173 00002175 0000217a >>>>>>>> H correctly simulates itself simulating DDD >>>>>>>> 00002172 00002173 00002175 0000217a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *until H correctly determines that its simulated D* >>>>>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is a wild guess of HHH, not a correct determination. When it >>>>>>> sees the call to HHH and we know that HHH halts, we know that >>>>>>> there is only a finite recursion, so the 'would never stop >>>>>>> running' exists only in your dreams. >>>>>>> The input is a finite string that includes the code of Halt7.c, >>>>>>> which specifies that the simulation will abort. So, HHH is wrong >>>>>>> when it assumes that an abort is needed for this input to prevent >>>>>>> a never stop running. >>>>>>> Face the facts, not your dreams. Try a real argument, instead a >>>>>>> repetition of your dream. Try to get out of rebuttal mode. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H sees DDD call the same function with the same >>>>>>>> parameter and there are no conditional branch >>>>>>>> instructions from the beginning of DDD to calling >>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) again. This repeating pattern proves >>>>>>>> non-termination. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HHH does not even see a full cycle, so it cannot know that there >>>>>>> are no conditional branches in the cycle. You can view a full >>>>>>> cycle in different ways: >>>>>>> 1) from the first start of DDD up to the second start of DDD. The >>>>>>> second beginning of DDD is reached after many steps of the >>>>>>> simulation, which contains a lot of conditional branching >>>>>>> instruction. >>>>>>> 2) From the first start of HHH up to the second start of HHH. In >>>>>>> this cycle there are also many conditional branch instructions >>>>>>> within HHH. >>>>>>> So, it is misleading to say that there are no conditional branch >>>>>>> instruction in the full cycle. >>>>>>> That a small part of the cycle does not have conditional branch >>>>>>> instructions does not prove anything. >>>>>>> Face the facts. Stop repeating your dreams. Come out of rebuttal >>>>>>> mode and try a serious honest dialogue. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, that all correct.  There are loads of conditional branch >>>>>> instructions performed by HHH as part of DDD.  This makes a >>>>>> nonsense of the implementation of PO's "infinite recursion" test. >>>>>> >>>>>> But there is a worse nonsense here:  even if there were indeed no >>>>>> conditional branches between the matching call statements in the >>>>>> simulation, THAT STILL WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO GUARANTEE INFINITE >>>>>> RECURSION! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are assuming details of HHH that are not included >>>>> in its specification. A DDD that is only simulated by >>>>> HHH *is* infinite recursion. >>>> >>>> >>>> But such an HHH isn't the needed decider, so not the DDD that we are >>>> looking at when we have a decider HHH. >>>> >>>> Sorry, >>>>> >>>>> void DDD() >>>>> { >>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>    return; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Any moron can see that DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt. >>>>> It does not matter how many steps of DDD are simulated by HHH. >>>>> No DDD every reaches its own "return" statement final halt state. >>>> >>>> And any HHH that just simulates its input isn't a decider, and thus >>>> fails. >>>> >>> >>> I have to go one step at a time or people >>> get completely overwhelmed. >>> >>> So far everyone here including you right now made >>> sure to dodge the above point, thus lack the mandatory >>> prerequisites for moving on the to the next point. >>> >>> When an HHH emulates N steps of DDD, >>> (no matter what the value of N is) >>> DDD never halts and has the exact >>> same behavior as HHH aborting DDD >>> after N steps. >>> >>> >>> >> >> N has a fixed value, > > No dip-shit N is specified to take on an value. > It is like I say 5 > 3 and you say > I doan beeve in nummers. > Completely counter-factual and irrelevant. Apparently you don't have any real arguments against the fact that N steps are insufficient for a simulation that needs M steps. (M>N) Apparently you also do not understand what it means to change the input.