Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:57:51 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 106 Message-ID: References: <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:57:53 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e1077c3f244117f83fc73d481c099ebe"; logging-data="1422814"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+nRN8dKkyqukO3ntld7jV7" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:mFhuTvTyxX8QQhYqQQ3j8u9VhH8= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 5981 Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott: > On 8/15/2024 1:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry: >>>>>>> On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct. >>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N >>>>>>>>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD, >>>>>>>>> That is what I said dufuss. >>>>>>>> You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted >>>>>>>> simulation as >>>>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is >>>>>>>>>>> sufficient >>>>>>>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller, >>>>>>>>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its >>>>>>>>> caller* >>>>>>>> how *HHH* returns >>>>>> >>>>>>>> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix >>>>>>>>     DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates >>>>>> DDD >>>>>>>>     second level >>>>>>>>       DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected >>>>>>>>     HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts >>>>>> voila >>>>>>>> HHH halts >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH >>>>>>> aborts its >>>>>>> simulation [line 5 above], >>>>>>> then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation >>>>>>> earlier.  You know that, right? >>>>> >>>>>> Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical >>>>>> reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort >>>>>> the same. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot >>>>> wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be >>>>> waiting forever. >>>> Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before >>>> the simulated HHH would abort and halt. >>> >>> Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong. >> >> For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct. >> > > *Fred has the same incorrect views as joes* > *Here is where you agreed that Fred is wrong* > *when replying to joes* > > On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote: > > On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote: > >> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott: > >>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH > >>>  returns to its caller*>> > >>> (the first one doesn't even have a caller) > >>> Use the above machine language instructions to show this. > >> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix > >>    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated > >>    HHH simulates DDD    second level > >>      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected > >>    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference > >>    DDD halts        voila > >> HHH halts > > > > You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your > > simulated HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above], > > then the outer level H would have aborted its > > identical simulation earlier.  You know that, right? > > [It's what people have been discussing here endlessly > > for the last few months! :) ] > > > > So your trace is impossible... > > > > It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very short of memory.) I never said such a thing. I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH had only one cycle to go. I never said that the simulated HHH reached it abort and halted. In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach the abort and halt of the simulated HHH proves that the simulation is incomplete and incorrect, because a complete simulation (such as by HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt. It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, or your memory is indeed very short. Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from rebuttal mode, instead of ignoring it immediately.