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: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 23:23:58 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 147 Message-ID: References: <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org> <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org> <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org> <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <5VKdndWBS-oqCSz7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <9959d3a939d49ec30579ddaf2a628ca89821f29f@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 06:23:59 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="198d92f6295c39b86c65eb128f10a699"; logging-data="1452847"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uSqzKeEtFGDkQJfXGyfie" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:+tOK+WswdJLdbDx4W7rwQDMXWec= In-Reply-To: <9959d3a939d49ec30579ddaf2a628ca89821f29f@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7938 On 8/5/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 8/5/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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. >> >> > > Which means you are not allowed to abort it, It never meant that and you know it *until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never* *stop running unless aborted* 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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer