Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135675
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself |
| Date | 2025-11-15 16:27 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10fa9md$3k0ff$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (24 earlier) <20251114182709.199@kylheku.com> <10f8qvt$38se3$1@dont-email.me> <20251114192943.14@kylheku.com> <10f92rf$3aee0$1@dont-email.me> <20251114212940.229@kylheku.com> |
On 15/11/2025 05:37, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2025 9:51 PM, 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.
>>>
>>
>> It is not incompleteness of the simulation when
>> you change my words to use the strawman deception
>> this is dishonest.
>>
>> That this simulation cannot possibly complete
>> is not at the same same thing as H just gives up.
>> That you characterize is this way is flat out
>> dishonest.
>
> I predicted that the simulations can complete. I then conducted an
> experiemnt which confirmed the prediction.
>
> But to clarify your position: you are saying that it is not the
> incompleteness of the simulation that prevents the simulated H from not
> returning to the simulated D? But that the simulated H would not return
> to D even if the simulation were continued after aborted by the outer H?
> (Same as in the case of Infinite_Recursion?)
>
> If that were the case, I would have had to make a technical mistake to
> come to the opposite observation in actual traces, and that mistake can
> be root-caused, like any other bug.
>
> I made every effort to ensure that exactly the correct state of
> the simulation of D were isolated and stepped: the state not touched
> in any way since the last DebugStep applied by the aborting
> decider.
>
> Mike Terry picked up my actual work and built on it; he reported that
> it's basically solid (except that the original pieces in Halt7.c do some
> invalid impure things making it impossible to read too much into the
> results). He however reported making a corrected pair of H and D like
> functions which actualy showed a clean "infinite simulation tower"
> starting to take shape, which he traced to something like six or seven
> levels, if I recall. With each of the D's terminating.
>
> He reported being able to use my work as-is, I think.
>
Correct. Any changes I made in your code were just changes to logging output, and the added loop to
continue resuming abandonned simulations (oldest first). (Your code I based it on captured all
simulations, but just resumed a single simulation. Oh! I fiddled a bit with your list global
variable, to make it an actual "list" rather than "stack". You'll get what I mean by that...)
What I would say regarding the failure of PO's demonstration with HHH/DD etc. is that while your
resumption approach is interesting, it should not be needed to convince anyone that PO's argument is
incorrect. (It may be useful in illuminating why/where PO has gone wrong in his thinking, although
PO himself cannot work through the abstract ideas involved in your explanation. He is too literal
in his thinking for that.)
To demonstrate that PO's argument is wrong, it's sufficient to show:
1. His (partial) decider HHH decides DD never halts.
2. DD halts.
Both of those facts have been concretely demonstrated with PO's code, namely running HHH(DD) and
DD() respectively, called directly from main(). [All PO's explanations for why that isn't a
counter-argument are just silly, and are seen as silly by pretty much everyone reviewing as soon as
they properly understand what PO is claiming.] We can talk about things like "what HHH /would/ do
if it never aborted" or "what HHH's simulation /would/ do if resumed", but they are beyond what the
HP talks of, and do not make a fully convincing /proof/ of PO's incorrectness (IMO of course),
unlike the simple (1) and (2) above. [(1) and (2) work, because they focus directly on what HP
requires and what PO claims.]
Mike.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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