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

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.theory
Subject	Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself
Date	2025-11-15 10:43 -0600
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<10faajl$3k90i$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(24 earlier) <10f8qvt$38se3$1@dont-email.me> <20251114192943.14@kylheku.com> <10f92rf$3aee0$1@dont-email.me> <20251114212940.229@kylheku.com> <10fa9md$3k0ff$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/15/2025 10:27 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> 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.
> 

 > 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.
 >

Kaz already admitted that D simulated by H
cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state, thus anything
that he says after that regarding the behavior
of D simulated by H is necessarily nonsense.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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