Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:05:53 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <4ed43f5b0a3bfc3833e62746b70cd3c3dafac1e9@i2pn2.org> References: <04b97cd4a405abead92368522fcf77070bb4fa55@i2pn2.org> <6d43f24547a3b170ce6f7a99e30ec60dec589f79@i2pn2.org> <7f9b731b2367a2bcf2883278ee5265d30a8f82d6@i2pn2.org> <744d42e4d9d67b49cb1844a2651cb0c350760f0c@i2pn2.org> <56314b3bac257d0fc228c26f3c8c5eec40a87215@i2pn2.org> <1fbe0efc5b030be11df07a930754d90ce56525be@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:05:53 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3002436"; 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: 4651 Lines: 53 Am Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:30:00 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/11/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/11/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/11/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/11/24 10:51 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:27 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 09 Jul 2024 23:19:25 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/9/2024 11:01 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *DDD NEVER HALTS* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD ONLY calls HHH... >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that >>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> second line of DDD no matter what. >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns. >>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that correctly >>>>>>>>>>> emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it to the second line >>>>>>>>>>> of DDD no matter what. >>>>>>>>>> WRONG, you don't seem to understand the difference between DDD >>>>>>>>>> and HHH's emualtion of it. >>>>>>> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language. By this measure when 1 >>>>>>> to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by each pure function x86 >>>>>>> emulator HHH (of the infinite set of every HHH that can possibly >>>>>>> exist) then DDD cannot possibly reach its own machine address of >>>>>>> 00002174 and halt. >>>>>> By the semantic of the x86 programming language, the only correct >>>>>> simulation is a FULL simulation >>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with the lie that when 1 >>>>> step of DDD is correctly emulated that 0 steps of DDD are correctly >>>>> emulated. >>> When 1,2,3... ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH it is a lie >>> to say that this many instructions were not correctly emulated and you >>> know it. >> But only N instructions "correctly emulated" is NOT a CORRECT >> emulaition of the instructions of DDD/HHH > I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!! Please don't insult ADD people. You did talk of an HHH that only simulated a fixed number of steps. They do not provide a correct (full) simulation. The only interesting case is infinitely many steps of a nonterminating input. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.