Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 14:09:13 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org> <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org> <7295d80cad171cd65cc39845362189aa88adca4f@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 18:09:13 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1342259"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5365 Lines: 106 On 8/3/24 1:58 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/3/2024 12:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 8/3/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/3/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 8/3/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/3/2024 11:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 8/3/24 12:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/3/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 9:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 15:50 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.aug.2024 om 22:57 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which proves that the simulation is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When are you going to understand that you are not allowed >>>>>>>>>>> to disagree with the semantics of the x86 language? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I do not disagree. >>>>>>>>>> When are you going to understand that it is a deviation of the >>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language to skip instructions of a >>>>>>>>>> halting program, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) to repeat the process. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it does this an infinite number of times the simulated DDD >>>>>>>>> never reaches its own return instruction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it does this a googolplex number of times the simulated DDD >>>>>>>>> never reaches its own return instruction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, the PARTIAL SIMULATION of DDD never reaches the return >>>>>>>> instruction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For N = 0; while N <= googolplex; N++ >>>>>>> N instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[N] never >>>>>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never >>>>>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus any HHH that takes a wild guess that DDD emulated >>>>>>> by itself never halts is always correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The SIMULATION of DDD never reaches the return instruction. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Great! Finally. >>>>> When we understand that the return instruction is halt state >>>>> of DDD then DDD correctly simulated by HHH never halts. >>>>> >>>> No, you are just proving you are incapable of learning. >>>> >>>> The PARTIAL simulation of DDD done by HHH doesn't reach the return >>>> instruction. >>>> >>> >>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never >>> reach their own "return" instruction final state. >>> >>> So you are saying that the infinite one does? >>> >> >> I said for the HHH's that do a partial simulation it does. >> > > You said: "doesn't" you did not say: "does" > You can't even accurately quote your own self? No, you just don''t know what you are talking about because you lie to yourself. the partial simulation doesn't reach the return instruction. The program DDD that was partially simulated DOES reach the return instructions, AFTER the partial simulation aborted. > > Every DDD correctly emulated by any HHH for a finite or > infinite number of steps never reaches its own "return" > halt state. > Nope. And you statment is just a incoherent statement, as no partial simulaitoni for a finite number of steps is "correct". Sorry, you are just proviing you are an idiot. Any statement you make "by the meaning of the words" needs to be verified, as you have proved you don't know the "meaning of the words". Words like "Correct" or "Truth" or "Proven" are just beyound your understanding it seems.