Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error

On 6/5/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/5/2024 10:40 AM, John Smith wrote:

On 5/06/24 04:19, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 9:13 PM, John Smith wrote:

On 5/06/24 04:07, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 8:39 PM, John Smith wrote:

On 5/06/24 03:33, olcott wrote:

On 6/4/2024 8:20 PM, John Smith wrote:

On 4/06/24 20:02, olcott wrote:

Those words are dead obviously correct about how a partial simulation
does correctly determine the halt status of this function:
>
void Infinite_Recursion2(u32 N)
{
     H(Infinite_Recursion2, (ptr)N);
}

>
Does Infinite_Recursion2 halt?

>
When halting is defined in the software engineering terms of
terminating normally then Infinite_Recursion2 does not even
halt when it runs out of stack space and crashes.

>
H always halts, and never runs out of stack space, because it is a decider. How does Infinite_Recursion2 run out of stack space, if H doesn't run out of stack space?
>

>
When we are on actual physical machines as my fully operational
HH/DD are running put of stack space is possible.
>

>
Then increase the stack space until it doesn't run out. Turing machines can't run out of stack space unless you programmed them wrong.

>
It is fully operational C code it can run out of stack space
even if you give it googolplex of terabytes.
>

>
Sounds like it's infinite recursion. Infinite recursion doesn't halt. Deciders always halt, so a program that's infinitely recursive isn't a decider.

 HH detects non-halting inputs and stops simulating them when
it sees a repeating state.
 

And Thus, DD that is using that same HH also gets out of that repeating state.
Or you are just admitting that you have been lying for years that DD was built correctly, perhaps because you don't know the meaning of the word correct.