Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting
 Joes
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:18:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <03ebaa04368e7e0fd796c840c251e3ee5f859d11@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
 <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me>
 <8b56eba0ec44b78d23a1029236e2c22734d48ae9@i2pn2.org>
 <v9md9p$19n30$1@dont-email.me>
 <54621f8432068f9af81c388d3100984a8b8f8415@i2pn2.org>
 <v9mjrc$1af3c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:18:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2782046"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9mjrc$1af3c$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4144
Lines: 73

On 8/16/24 12:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/15/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/15/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/24 8:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> That is the part that Joes and Fred do not understand.
>>>
>>
>> Except that it isn't a misunderstanding.
>>
>> The "behavior of DDD", isn'trestricted to this one copy as HHH 
>> simulates it, but the behavior of ALL copies of DDD, if they were 
>> directly run.
>>
> 
> So you don't seem to understand the same thing that Joes and Fred don't 
> understand, that Mike does understand.

Nope, you are just so stupid you don't understand that Mike is saying 
that you don't understand it.

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity exetends to not being able to 
understand that you don't know something, which is the worse kind of 
stupidity.

That is worse than the election deniers and climate change deniers.


> 
>> You don't seem to understand what fundamentally a "Program" is.
> 
>