Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:57:46 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <67a72a6769c3e0d96ba03aea4988153781ba01a0@i2pn2.org> <32a0b6d30a6fd14b8558749c01badb0692661dcf@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:57:46 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2132707"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5631 Lines: 77 On 7/4/24 12:24 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2024 11:22 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 10:56:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/4/2024 10:07 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:43:22 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 7/4/2024 8:38 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:50:51 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 5:38 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> HHH always meets its abort criteria first because it always sees at >>>>>>> least one fully execution trace of DDD before the next inner one. It >>>>>>> is stupidly incorrect to think that HHH can wait on the next one. >>>>>> Stupidly incorrect is thinking that the next one wouldn’t abort just >>>>>> because that part isn’t simulated. >>>>> Unless the outermost one aborts none of them do. >>>> Since the outermost aborts, all of them do. >> The inner ones ARE abortED, which prevents THEM from aborting. >> > > They all use the exact same code. > The outer one meets its abort criteria first. > This means unless the outer one aborts NONE OF THEM ABORT. > But since the outer one aborts, they ALL abort and are all halting. You can't use conditions that are not met to prove what happens. YOu seem to live in a world where what is doesn't matter, but what you make up does. Since all the HHHs abort, we don't care about the DDDs built on the non-existanct HHH that doesn't abort, only about the ones built on the ACTUAL HHH that does. Your live in a world of just make-believe.