Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 08:43:22 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <67a72a6769c3e0d96ba03aea4988153781ba01a0@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 15:43:23 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c"; logging-data="2928900"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19PStxe9DTnCqbrL1oFMTRJ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:WbWR+hlM9CiR/USQo6fbGBTNgLM= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4482 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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer