Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 16:43:29 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <593bb42182d924e731a75a91f4060169ab2a9b29@i2pn2.org> References: <1021ii4$3327l$6@dont-email.me> <1021k02$3327l$8@dont-email.me> <23ae4f047d81cbfae9e26ed282cffb6e79cbcc54.camel@gmail.com> <1021m7c$34oo9$4@dont-email.me> <687ca809075e6c4f6ee64b2fc5678e21621ca22e.camel@gmail.com> <1021nrf$35fiv$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 16:43:29 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3707553"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Am Sat, 07 Jun 2025 11:02:55 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/7/2025 10:54 AM, wij wrote: >> On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 10:35 -0500, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/7/2025 10:31 AM, wij wrote: >>>> On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 09:57 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/7/2025 9:54 AM, wij wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 2025-06-07 at 09:32 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence of DDD >>>>>>> emulated by HHH from DDD emulated by HHH1. >>>>>>> Shows that DDD emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by HHH1 diverges >>>>>>> as soon as HHH begins emulating itself emulating DDD. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From the execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shown below* >>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH [00002183] >>>>>>> push ebp               [00002183] push ebp [00002184] mov >>>>>>> ebp,esp            [00002184] mov ebp,esp [00002186] push 00002183 >>>>>>> ; DDD    [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; >>>>>>> HHH    [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH *HHH1 emulates DDD once then >>>>>>> HHH emulates DDD once, these match* What do you mean by "then" and "once"? That implies completion and succession, however we are only ever simulating a single call, and only HHH1 simulates any returns of DDD/HHH. HHH1 simulates DDD completely, HHH recurses and aborts *inside*. HHH does not simulate DDD once, it only enters the call, but never exits. >>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at the machine >>>>>>> address of 00002183. >>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at the machine >>>>>>> address of 00002190. At those addresses we have the first instruction of DDD and the one after the call, respectively. [main -> HHH1(DDD) -> HHH(DDD) -> HHH(DDD)] >>>>>>> New slave_stack at:198d21  DDD emulated by HHH *This is the >>>>>>> beginning of the divergence of the behavior* >>>>>>> *HHH is emulating itself emulating DDD, HHH1 never does that* HHH1 does simulate HHH simulating DDD. >>>>>> The HP is asking for such a H that H(D)==1 iff D() halts. >>>>>> You are always solving POO Problem. >>>>>> >>>>> int main() >>>>> { >>>>>     DDD(); // The HHH(DDD) that DDD calls cannot report >>>>> }          // on the behavior of its caller. >>>> >>>> That is what the HP theorem says, the halting decider is not >>>> possible. >>>> >>> The HP theorem never bothered to notice that it has contradictory >>> axioms. HHH(DDD) IS NOT ALLOWED TO REPORT ON THE BEHAVIOR OF ITS >>> CALLER. Which axiom contradicts which? >> Nope. It you who don't understand English. >> > The theory of computation does not allow a halt decider to report on the > behavior of its caller. Cite the chapter and verse where it does allow > this. And lo, no program shall be forbidden to call the mighty halt decider. Recursions 22:22 -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.