Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 10:38:36 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <67a72a6769c3e0d96ba03aea4988153781ba01a0@i2pn2.org> References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 10:38:36 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2114256"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 5678 Lines: 101 Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:21:01 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/3/2024 11:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott: >>> On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 7/3/2024 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows that when HHH emulates the machine language of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulations so that itself can terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This the problem that I am willing to discuss. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am unwilling to discuss any other problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This does meet the Sipser approved criteria. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be >>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant does not bring the discussion any further. Sipser >>>>>>>>>>>> is not relevant, because that is about a correct simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>> Your simulation is not correct. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you disagree with this you are either dishonest or clueless >>>>>>>>>>> I no longer care which one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated >>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are freaking thinking too damn narrow minded. >>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist which calls >>>>>>>>> this emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted >>>>>>>>> (which may be never). >>>>>>>> Whatever HHH does, it does not run forever but aborts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> HHH halts on input DDD. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> HHH(DDD); >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> That would be an error of the simulator, because it aborts its own >>>>>> simulation too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would >>>>>> return and >>>>> >>>>> You dishonestly redefined the problem so that it has no correct >>>>> answer. >>>> >>>> (Ignoring an distracting irrelevant hominem remark.) >>>> >>>> If you think that "What time is a three story building?" must have a >>>> correct answer, you are wrong. >>>> Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly, you >>>> are wrong. >>>> >>>> int H(ptr p, ptr i); >>>> >>>> int main() >>>> { >>>> return H(main, 0); >>>> } >>>> >>>> You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it does not >>>> return. >>>> DDD is making it unnecessarily complex, but has the same problem. >>> >>> main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted. >>> >> HHH is unable to simulate main correctly, because it unable to simulate >> itself correctly. >> The 'unless phrase' is misleading, because we are talking about a H >> *does* abort. Dreaming of one that does not abort, is irrelevant. >> The correctly simulated main would stop, because the simulated H is >> only one cycle away from its return when its simulation is aborted. > > HHH is required to report on what would happen if HHH did not abort. HHH > is forbidden from getting its own self stuck in infinite execution. > Emulated instances of itself is not its actual self. No. HHH is simulating itself, not a different function that does not abort. All calls are instances of the same code with the same parameters. They all do the same thing: aborting. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.