Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting --- VERIFIED FACT +++

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting --- VERIFIED FACT +++
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophy
Date : 15. Jun 2025, 14:49:51
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <102mj1v$uef9$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/15/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 14.jun.2025 om 15:38 schreef olcott:
On 6/14/2025 4:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 13.jun.2025 om 17:53 schreef olcott:
On 6/13/2025 5:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-06-12 15:30:05 +0000, olcott said:
>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
It is a verified fact that DD() *is* one of the forms
of the counter-example input as such an input would
be encoded in C. Christopher Strachey wrote his in CPL.
>
// rec routine P
//   §L :if T[P] go to L
//     Return §
// https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/4/313/354243
void Strachey_P()
{
   L: if (HHH(Strachey_P)) goto L;
   return;
}
>
https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article-abstract/7/4/313/354243? redirectedFrom=fulltext
>
Strachey only informally presents the idea of the proof. Formalism
and details needed in a rigorous proof is not shown.
>
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>
Exactly how would DDD correctly emulated by HHH
reach its own "ret" instruction final halt state?
>
Indeed, HHH fails where other world-class simulators have no problem to simulate the program specified in the input.
>
>
So you still don't understand what recursive simulation is?
>
 It seems I understand it better than you do. You seem to think that every recursion is a infinite recursion. As soon as you see a recursion, you think it has been proven that it is an infinite recursion, even if the code specifies an abort and halt.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
It is an easily verified fact that the input to HHH(DDD) and
the input to HHH(DD) meets the above self-evidently true criteria.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
13 Jun 25 * Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting --- VERIFIED FACT6olcott
14 Jun 25 `* Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting --- VERIFIED FACT5Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 25  `* Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting --- VERIFIED FACT4olcott
15 Jun 25   +* Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting --- VERIFIED FACT2Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 25   i`- Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting --- VERIFIED FACT +++1olcott
15 Jun 25   `- Re: HHH(DD) does correctly reject its input as non-halting --- VERIFIED FACT1olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal