Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.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 22:21:16 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 112 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 05:21:16 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="198d92f6295c39b86c65eb128f10a699"; logging-data="1433643"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UeG5R4VFermFYst5q4eGR" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:zroh4YEZlk0Ztl+5GtjzgR+3PTk= In-Reply-To: <5VKdndWBS-oqCSz7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6144 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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer