Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!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 Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 11:44:57 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 124 Message-ID: References: <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org> <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org> <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org> <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <5VKdndWBS-oqCSz7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 18:44:58 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="198d92f6295c39b86c65eb128f10a699"; logging-data="1778166"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+blqVZSQjt7RkycjDhNtR" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:W+Qf1p1ZjJxxfg/j9p5EfEwRsps= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 7079 On 8/6/2024 11:35 AM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 06/08/2024 17:18, olcott wrote: >> On 8/6/2024 10:58 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> On 06/08/2024 04:21, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/5/2024 10:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>> On 06/08/2024 03:25, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 8/5/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/5/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/5/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-04 18:59:03 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the infinite one does? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substitute for facts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the right answer to the wrong question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its "return" instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of >>>>>>>>>>>> emulation and not and direct execution. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you mean anything other than what the words mean you wihout >>>>>>>>>>> a definition in the beginning of the same message then it is >>>>>>>>>>> not reasonable to expect anyone to understand what you mean. >>>>>>>>>>> Instead people may think that you mean what you say or that >>>>>>>>>>> you don't know what you are saying. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you don't understand what the word "emulate" means look it up. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> DDD (above) cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction >>>>>>>>>> halt >>>>>>>>>> state when its machine code is correctly emulated by HHH. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Only because an HHH that does so never returns to anybody. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you really not understand that recursive emulation >>>>>>>> isomorphic to infinite recursion? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not when the emulation is conditional. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Infinite_Recursion() meets the exact same condition that DDD >>>>>> emulated by HHH makes and you know this. Since you are so >>>>>> persistently trying to get away contradicting the semantics >>>>>> of the x86 language the time is coming where there is zero >>>>>> doubt that this is an honest mistake. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ben does correctly understand that the first half of the Sipser >>>>>> approved criteria is met. Even Mike finally admitted this. >>>>> >>>>> I don't recall doing that.  Please provide a reference for this. >>>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/2/2024 8:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>  > It's easy enough to say "PO has his own criterion for >>>>  > halting, which is materially different from the HP condition, >>>>  > and so we all agree PO is correct by his own criterion... >>>> >>> >>> That is not agreeing that the first half of the Sipser approved >>> criteria is met. >> >> That my own criterion. Whatever else could you mean? >> Do you still disagree with Ben on this point? > > I do not agree that the first half of Sipser's quote has been satisfied > by your scenario.  You have misunderstood/misapplied what Sipser agreed to. > > > Mike. > So you think that Ben is wrong? On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. .... > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it > were not halted. That much is a truism. Since you fail to point out any supporting reasoning this would indicate that you have no such reasoning. You simply guess that I must be wrong and don't want to bother with trying to show any actual mistake. I was 100% specific going over each tiny nuance of detail of exactly how anyone can know that I am correct meeting the fist half of the professor Sipser approved criterion. We can't get to the more difficult second half until after their is agreement on the first half. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer