Can someone at least validate this criterion measure ?

25 views
Skip to first unread message

olcott

unread,
Jul 21, 2022, 11:21:10 PMJul 21
to
*Infinite recursion / infinitely recursive emulation detection criteria*

int H(ptr p, ptr i)
{
p(i);
}

void P(ptr x)
{
H(x, x);
return;
}

int main()
{
H(P,P);
}

If the execution trace of function P() called by function H() shows:
(1) Function H() is called twice in sequence from the same machine
address of P().
(2) With the same parameters to H().
(3) With no control flow instructions between the invocation of P() and
the call to H() from P().

Then the function call from P() to H() is infinitely recursive.
The exact same pattern applies when H() simulates its input with an x86
emulator.

When H is an infinite recursion detector it simply matches the above
criteria in its execution trace of P, aborts its simulation of its input
and reports that its simulated input would never reach its "return"
instruction.

To avoid using static local memory for its stored execution trace H must
know its own address and see itself called from P with the same
arguments that it was called with.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

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

olcott

unread,
Jul 22, 2022, 5:44:08 PMJul 22
to
On 7/22/2022 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 3:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 22:08:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>> I do this by showing the criteria that humans use to recognize ordinary
>>> infinite recursion between two functions.
>>
>> The criteria humans use are not applicable to Turing machines.
>>
>> Because Turing-decidability and Human-decidability are not the same
>> thing.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
>>
>
> If Turing machines cannot not see what humans see then Turing machines
> may be an incorrect model of computation.
>
>

Please stop cutting out the immediate context, leave at least the last
four messages.

If a Turing Machines cannot see that the input to a halt decider
specifies infinitely recursive simulation and humans can see this then
Turing machines must be not the best model of computation.

*Includes link to the entire halt deciding system including a link to*
*the compiler that compiles it: Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2017*

*Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* ?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering

Chris M. Thomasson

unread,
Jul 22, 2022, 7:52:44 PMJul 22
to
On 7/22/2022 2:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/22/2022 3:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 July 2022 at 22:08:28 UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>>>> I do this by showing the criteria that humans use to recognize ordinary
>>>> infinite recursion between two functions.
>>>
>>> The criteria humans use are not applicable to Turing machines.
>>>
>>> Because Turing-decidability and Human-decidability are not the same
>>> thing.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice%27s_theorem
>>>
>>
>> If Turing machines cannot not see what humans see then Turing machines
>> may be an incorrect model of computation.
>>
>>
>
> Please stop cutting out the immediate context, leave at least the last
> four messages.
[...]

The last 1000 messages?

olcott

unread,
Jul 22, 2022, 9:29:20 PMJul 22
to
I apologize I meant to make very few posts to comp.c and comp.c++ and
always make the followup to comp.theory.

*If anyone replies to this post please change the group to comp.theory*
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages