Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2

Op 15.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:

On 7/15/2024 3:49 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 19:30:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/14/2024 7:20 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 09:00:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/14/2024 3:29 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:33:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/13/2024 6:26 PM, joes wrote:

Can you elaborate? All runtime instances share the same static
code.
I am talking about the inner HHH which is called by the simulated
DDD. That one is, according to you, aborted. Which is wrong,
because by virtue of running the same code, the inner HHH aborts
ITS simulation of DDD calling another HHH.

What are the twins and what is their difference? Do you disagree with
my tracing?

>

The directly executed DDD is like the first call of infinite
recursion. The emulated DDD is just like the second call of infinite
recursion. When the second call of infinite recursion is aborted then
the first call halts.

Not really. Execution does not continue.

>

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
     Infinite_Recursion();
}
The above *is* infinite recursion.
A program could emulate the above code and simply skip line 3 causing
Infinite_Recursion() to halt.

That would be incorrect.

>

When DDD calls HHH(DDD) HHH returns.

Therefore it does not need to be aborted.

>

When DDD correctly emulated by HHH the call never returns as is proven
below. The executed DDD() has HHH(DDD) skip this call.

I do not see this below.

>

HHH(DDD) must skip this call itself by terminating the whole DDD
process.

>

Because this HHH does not know its own machine address HHH only sees
that DDD calls a function that causes its first four steps to be
repeated. HHH does not know that this is recursive simulation. To HHH
it looks just like infinite recursion.

>

New slave_stack at:1038c4 -- create new process context for 1st DDD
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc

>

[0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call
HHH(DDD) New slave_stack at:14e2ec -- create new process context for
2nd DDD

>

[0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call
HHH(DDD) Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation
Stopped

How is this detected? Is it also triggered when calling a function in a
loop?

>

You never bothered to answer whether or not you have 100% understanding
of infinite recursion. If you don't then you can never understand what I
am saying. If you do that I already proved my point. Here is the proof
again:

As if you would believe me.
You never bothered to answer my questions (see above).
That only proves that HHH and DDD halt.
>

 This *is* an answer too difficult for you to understand.
 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
 

A clear proof of an incorrect simulation, because there was no infinite recursion. Only N recursions, which were aborted after N-1 recursions, so the simulation skipped an important part of the input, which made it invalid.
In fact, DDD has nothing to do with it. It is easy to eliminate DDD:
        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }
This has the same problem. This proves that the problem is not in DDD, but in HHH, which halts when it aborts the simulation, but it decides that the simulation of itself does not halt.
HHH is unable to decide about finite recursions.
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
It decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion, which is incorrect.
Your HHH is programmed to abort the simulation after N cycles of recursive simulations. Therefore, it is incorrect to abort the simulation of HHH when the simulated HHH has performed N-1 cycles, because that changes the behaviour of HHH.
Since the simulated HHH always runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, it is clear that HHH can never simulate enough cycles for a correct simulation, as is required by the x86 language.
Therefore, the simulation is incorrect according to the criteria you stipulated.
The conclusion is simple:
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
No matter how much you want it to be correct, or how many times you repeat that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end.
Sipser would agree that this incorrect simulation cannot be used to detect a non-halting behaviour.