Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 08:22:17 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 86 Message-ID: References: <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org> <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2024 08:22:19 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="525aebd95217d81ff42443d32f2827bd"; logging-data="4127751"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+OIyabnotyu+/EO5MM/28y" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:pjBztP2IKdPFrUg8STXJLrlYshQ= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 4660 Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott: > 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? > Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are no substitute for facts. The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology. The correct simulation of a halting program halts. A truism. HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly. I am happy that you were not a member of our team when we developed simulators to check the design of big detector systems. We knew that a simulation is only correct if it matches the reality. But you seem to think that it is correct that a simulator does not match the reality.