Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135635
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Kaz ---Keith said DDD simulated by HHH is equivalent to DDD calling itself |
| Date | 2025-11-15 03:51 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <20251114192943.14@kylheku.com> (permalink) |
| References | (24 earlier) <10f84ai$33gp1$1@dont-email.me> <20251114132941.241@kylheku.com> <10f8934$34ov2$2@dont-email.me> <20251114182709.199@kylheku.com> <10f8qvt$38se3$1@dont-email.me> |
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.
>> 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).
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
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