Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:14:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <v9iak3$f16v$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 15:14:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0b9b77ee625b8578b747fee4cc5a1452";
	logging-data="492767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18W9LHYCDaYClXyZQyQM0Ff"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q0omHldvIfL2eCrxx8tt+UmtHxY=
In-Reply-To: <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2858

On 8/14/2024 2:43 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
>>> Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,
>> That is what I said dufuss.
> You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation
> as correct.
> 


When one instruction of DDD is correctly emulated then one
instruction was correctly emulated.

>>>> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient to
>>>> correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.
>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,
>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller*
> how *HHH* returns
> 

Changing the question is the strawman error or reasoning.

>> (the first one doesn't even have a caller)
>> Use the above machine language instructions to show this.
> HHH simulates DDD	enter the matrix
>    DDD calls HHH(DDD)	Fred: could be eliminated
>    HHH simulates DDD	second level
>      DDD calls HHH(DDD)	recursion detected
>    HHH aborts, returns	outside interference
>    DDD halts		voila
> HHH halts
> 

That is the strawman error of reasoning.
DDD correctly emulated by HHH never reaches its own "return"
instruction. Show how it does or admit that I am correct.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer