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 Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 22:58:55 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 123 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 05:58:56 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="198d92f6295c39b86c65eb128f10a699"; logging-data="1444556"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jCOruUojeazVTvnO7Mrg0" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:BrHyd+/sG9vfqAtxAjQ8qKSatn4= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6842 On 8/5/2024 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 8/5/24 11:21 PM, 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... >> >>> (Of course, everything depends on what you take Sipser's quote to be >>> saying.  I choose to interpret it as I'm pretty confident that Sipser >>> intended, under which the first half is mpst certainly NOT met!) >>> >>> >>> Mike. >>> >>> >> >> >>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>      stop running unless aborted then >> >>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> >> >> void DDD() >> { >>    HHH(DDD); >>    return; >> } >> >> It is certainly the case that DDD correctly simulated by any >> HHH cannot possibly stop running unless aborted. >> >> I don't see how any expert in the C language can deny that >> with a straight face. Four have affirmed it. Two of these >> four have masters degrees in computer science. >> > > The problem is that this only works with the correct definition of > "Correctly Simulated" but not YOUR definition of Correctly Simulated. > I say correctly emulated according to the semantics of the x86 language yet no one besides me understand that. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer