Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller

On 7/11/2025 3:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 10.jul.2025 om 16:43 schreef olcott:

On 7/10/2025 6:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.jul.2025 om 15:35 schreef olcott:

On 7/9/2025 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.jul.2025 om 21:49 schreef olcott:

>

>
*It is shown here*
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
Because we have multiple levels of emulation the
instructions of each level are mixed together as
they actually occur in the execution trace.

>
So, why don't you include the code? Apparently belongs to the input. If not, why would HHH produce a trace of a non-input?
>

>
The test program HHH was encoded to halt.
The program under test DDD specifies non-halting behavior.

 No rebuttal, but, as usual, claims without evidence.
 

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
Every expert in the C programming language knows
that DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own final halt state.

>

>
None of these are relevant.
*The only thing that is relevant is this portion*
>
  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
  address   address   data      code       language
  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
[00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp      ; Begin main()
[00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>
New slave_stack at:1038c4
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
[00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:14e2ec
[00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

>
Indeed, it is relevant to show that HHH aborts with the invalid reason 'Infinite Recursion Detected'. There is no Infinite Recursion, there is only a finite recursion. One cycle later the simulation would reach a natural end.
>

>
Neither HHH nor DDD would ever stop running unless HHH
aborts its simulation. The leading author of theory
of computation textbooks agreed that this is non-halting behavior.
>

 As usual claims without evidence. If we do not change the input (which aborts after a few cycles o simulation),

Do you have any actual programming experience at all?
I have been a professional programmer since 1984.
It is a very easily verified fact that the input
never aborts anything at all.

 then the simulating HHH could reach the final halt state without abort.

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