Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #135639

Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself

Show all headers | View raw

On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 12:57 +0800, wij wrote:
> On Sat, 2025-11-15 at 03:51 +0000, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11/14/2025 8:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > > > On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 11/14/2025 3:40 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > > > > > On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 11/14/2025 2:23 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 11/14/2025 1:57 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 2025-11-14, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Assuming that HHH(DDD) "correctly simulates" DDD, and assuming it
> > > > > > > > > > > > does nothing else, your code would be equivalent to this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > >          void DDD(void) {
> > > > > > > > > > > >              DDD();
> > > > > > > > > > > >              return;
> > > > > > > > > > > >          }
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > That assumption does not hold; HHH does not correctly simulate DDD.
> > > > > > > > > > HHH /partially/ simulates DDD and then returns 0.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > You are back back to equivocating from an aborting HHH to non-aborting.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Ask Keith again about an aborting HHH such that HHH(DDD) returns 0.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > So you don't understand that it is impossible
> > > > > > > > > for any HHH to return any value to any DDD
> > > > > > > > > simulated by HHH?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > One thing at a time!
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > For a HHH that is aborting/returning, void DDD(void) { DDD(); return; }
> > > > > > > > is not equivalent to DDD(void) { HHH(DDD); return; }
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Now, under no simulating H (aborting or not) does the /simulation/ of
> > > > > > > > the diagonal case reach the return out of H: that much is true.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The simulated function does reach the return; the simulation just has to
> > > > > > > > be continued to perform those steps.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Under a non-aborting H (H(D) equivalent to UTM(D)), D is
> > > > > > > > non-terminating. If the abandoned simulation of D is continued, it
> > > > > > > > will not end no matter how many additional steps are simulated.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > In that sense, then, that situation is equivalent to other non-terminating
> > > > > > > > situations like D() { D(); } (same as Infinite_Recursion).
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > That's almost certainly what Keith was talking about.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yes and isomorphic to DD simulated by simulating
> > > > > > > termination analyzer HHH. DD simulated by HHH
> > > > > > > cannot possibly reach its "return" statement final
> > > > > > > halt state no matter what HHH does conclusively
> > > > > > > proving that HHH can unload DD from memory and
> > > > > > > reject it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > However, the fact that the DD simulation doesn't step far enough
> > > > > > for the DD return statement to be reached,
> > > > > > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The whole point is that D simulated by H
> > > > > > > cannot possbly reach its own simulated
> > > > > > > "return" statement no matter what H does.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does,
> > > > > > that D simulation won't reach the return statement.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > How is it that you are not a damned liar when
> > > > > you just said that infinity is not far enough
> > > > > in the above quote?
> > > > 
> > > > Yes; if H behaves indefinitely (does not terminate) then
> > > > of course neither does D.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > If there does not exist any value of N instructions
> > > of D simulated by H such that D reaches its own
> > > "return" statement final halt state then it is
> > > necessarily true that the input to H(D) specifies
> > > non-halting behavior.
> > 
> > Sigh.
> > 
> > This view requires us to:
> > 
> > - Conflate the incompleteness of a simulation with non-halting.
> > 
> > - Pretend that a test case like D somehow has two personalities:
> > the personality that obviously halts when it is "directly executed",
> > but somehow specifies non-terminating behavior when interpreted by H.
> > 
> > (Spare the newsgroup a re-articulation of your specific words
> > that expound these ideas yet again.)
> > 
> > These ideas have several issues that put you at an impasse with
> > virtually everyone you will meet who has two brain-cells to rub
> > together the area of computer science.
> > 
> > > Can we get on to the second step of my proof that
> > > I have waiting 3.5 years to get to?
> > 
> > I don't understand whose permission you are waiting for.
> > 
> > Did I wait for your permission when I hacked your x86utm
> > to continue abandoned simulations?
> > 
> > But, if you insist on asking, the answer is no: no, we cannot.
> > 
> > Since your first step is nonsense, and it is so important
> > that the nonsense be accepted for this mythical second step,
> > the second step must be nonsense also.
> 
> That is the reason of the long futile discussion. People don't following
> the proof, and jump to 'the next' step discussion POOH implement.
> 
> POOH already failed as a valid proof from the beginning. No need to discuss
> further, except clearly point out the problem to solve. Otherwise, people 
> talks about HP while olcott talks about POO Problem.

   int D()
   {
      int Halt_Status = H(D);    // <---- H(D) never returns
      if (Halt_Status)
         HERE: goto HERE;
      return Halt_Status;
   }

   int main() {
      H(D);            // If H(D) does not return, H fails as a decider
                       // If H(D) returns, H(D) conflicts the case in D
   }

We know olcott has various explanations and reports, but that must be lies.
Why I know olcott lies is because the above must be true, the false case
cannot ACTUALLY happen.

> > > > If H has a finite behavior of simulating N steps,
> > > > then D terminates in some N + k steps, for some k > 0.
> > > > 
> > > > H's simulation can never be long enough to be complete;
> > > > whenever it is designed such that H(D) ends up doing N
> > > > steps, it is the case that D actually requires N + k.
> > > 
> > > That cannot possibly be true in this case:
> > 
> > My paragraph is about D, and not about anyt other case.  The letter D is
> > our code symbol for "diagonal": the diagonal test case targeting H. When
> > I use D, I mean D.
> > 
> > Something slightly different is true for this case:
> > 
> > > void Infinite_Recursion()
> > > {
> > >    Infinite_Recursion();
> > >    return;
> > > }
> > 
> > This case is nontermianting and so it cannot be completely
> > simluated in any number of steps.
> > 
> > The simulating decider that aborts still simulates N steps of this. The
> > actual number of steps required is not N + k, for some nonzero finite k,
> > but, effectively, N + Infinity. After any N steps, infinitely many
> > more remain.
> > 
> > However, be that as it may, because Infinite_Recursion is
> > non-terminating, H's return value of 0 is correct.
> > 
> > A simulating decider can never simulate infinite cases to the end.
> > 
> > Those cases which a simulating decider can trace to the end, it
> > can cheerfully pronounce as "1".
> > 
> > Those cases which it cannot trace to the end, it cannot cheerfully
> > pronounce as "0". For those it needs some criteria beyond simulation,
> > like your abort test.
> > 
> > The diagonal case D is always one which the decider cannot trace
> > to the end; the diagonal case D always requires additional criteria.
> > 
> > But because it is the diagonal case, those criteria turn out wrong,
> > no matter how sophisticated and complicated.
> > 
> > > > In the case when H doesn't terminate (e.g. just simulates its argument
> > > > without any checks), we can imagine that N is infinity and therefore so
> > > > is N + k: H(D) and D do not terminate.
> > > > 
> > > > All my points are consistent and coherent, reflecting a single,
> > > > unified understanding.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > That posits that infinite recursion reaches
> > > its own final halt state as long as you wait
> > > longer that you wait.
> > 
> > No; only the D case specifically finishes in N + k instructions
> > --- and, again, provided that H returns 0! 
> > 
> > If H simulates D for N instructions, but then returns 1, then of
> > course D is nonterminating.
> > 
> > And any of course Infinite_Recursion does not reach its halt state,
> > regardless of whether the simulating H that traces it finishes in some
> > finite N steps, or keeps going, and regardless of what value it returns
> > if it finishes in N (since Infinite_Recursion doesn't call H, and thus
> > doesn't react to its return value).

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-14 13:52 -0600
  Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 19:57 +0000
    Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:11 -0600
      Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:23 +0000
        Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:44 -0600
          Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 21:40 +0000
            Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 16:05 -0600
              Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 02:35 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 21:10 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 03:51 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:57 +0800
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:23 +0800
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:25 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 05:37 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:48 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 06:47 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:36 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-15 16:27 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:43 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 18:11 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:58 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:11 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:22 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 21:33 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 15:49 -0600
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 22:08 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:15 -0800
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:26 -0600
  Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 21:34 -0800
    Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:42 -0600
      Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 06:54 +0000
        Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:38 -0600
          Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 18:07 +0000
            Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:55 -0600
              Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:17 +0000
                Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:11 -0800
    Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:57 +0000
      Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 16:36 -0800
        Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:00 -0600
  Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself HAL 9000 <hal@discovery.nasa> - 2025-11-16 00:56 +0000
    Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:14 -0600
      Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself HAL 9000 <hal@discovery.nasa> - 2025-11-16 12:42 +0000
        Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 09:29 -0600
          Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself HAL 9000 <hal@discovery.nasa> - 2025-11-16 16:46 +0000
            Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:07 -0600
            Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 17:11 +0000
              DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:20 -0600
              Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself HAL 9000 <hal@discovery.nasa> - 2025-11-16 18:40 +0000
              Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-16 18:43 +0000
            Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:18 -0800

csiph-web