Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:27:06 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <23a9af2565181a6d853bc27543b0fbb9d97e04ab@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
	<v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
	<v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
	<dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org>
	<v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me> <v632ta$23ohm$2@dont-email.me>
	<v63jej$26loi$6@dont-email.me> <v63s4h$28goi$2@dont-email.me>
	<v63s92$28dpi$3@dont-email.me> <v63t3r$28goi$6@dont-email.me>
	<v63tpd$28dpi$8@dont-email.me>
	<67a72a6769c3e0d96ba03aea4988153781ba01a0@i2pn2.org>
	<v665rb$2oun1$9@dont-email.me>
	<f808427bbd01195fa8ff6793e98c2ca162ac98de@i2pn2.org>
	<v668tr$2pc84$3@dont-email.me>
	<2288e4246127981d23e02d28cfe9ac3a6a29aad5@i2pn2.org>
	<v66h8b$2qr6f$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:27:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2138841"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5069
Lines: 67

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 11:05:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/4/2024 10:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/4/24 9:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2024 8:38 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:50:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/4/2024 5:38 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:21:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly,
>>>>>>>>>> you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>           int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>>>>           int main()
>>>>>>>>>>           {
>>>>>>>>>>             return H(main, 0);
>>>>>>>>>>           }
>>>>>>>>>> You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it
>>>>>>>>>> does not return.
>>>>>>>>>> DDD is making it unnecessarily complex, but has the same
>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>> main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>> HHH is unable to simulate main correctly, because it unable to
>>>>>>>> simulate itself correctly.
>>>>>>>> The 'unless phrase' is misleading, because we are talking about a
>>>>>>>> H *does* abort. Dreaming of one that does not abort, is
>>>>>>>> irrelevant. The correctly simulated main would stop, because the
>>>>>>>> simulated H is only one cycle away from its return when its
>>>>>>>> simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>> HHH is required to report on what would happen if HHH did not
>>>>>>> abort.
>>>>>>> HHH is forbidden from getting its own self stuck in infinite
>>>>>>> execution. Emulated instances of itself is not its actual self.
>>>>>> No. HHH is simulating itself, not a different function that does
>>>>>> not abort. All calls are instances of the same code with the same
>>>>>> parameters. They all do the same thing: aborting.
>>>>> HHH always meets its abort criteria first because it always sees at
>>>>> least one fully execution trace of DDD before the next inner one. It
>>>>> is stupidly incorrect to think that HHH can wait on the next one.
>>>> Stupidly incorrect is thinking that the next one wouldn’t abort just
>>>> because that part isn’t simulated.
>>>>
>>> Unless the outermost one aborts none of them do.
>>>
>> And, since it does (since you claim HHH(DDD) is correct in returning
>> non-halting) the all do, and thus DDD halts.
>> 
> *No you are stupidly wrong*
> This the same same as saying the when everyone in a foot race is in
> single file and 15 feet behind the one in front of them that everyone
> will come in first place.
Why does HHH simulate a program that does not abort?

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.