Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 15:00:00 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0e31140fcbcbfc262e34d122cedde84577c02738@i2pn2.org>
References: <vajdta$2qe9s$1@dont-email.me> <vak3a0$2teq9$1@dont-email.me>
	<vakhnf$302rl$2@dont-email.me> <vampgq$3dl83$3@dont-email.me>
	<van46p$3f6c0$6@dont-email.me> <van671$3fgd3$4@dont-email.me>
	<van6um$3foem$4@dont-email.me> <vandsl$3grf3$3@dont-email.me>
	<vaneq4$3h3es$1@dont-email.me> <vani7u$3hh2l$1@dont-email.me>
	<vaniq2$3hnvu$1@dont-email.me> <vanjd0$3hh2l$3@dont-email.me>
	<vank65$3htts$1@dont-email.me>
	<1055ba7a1450658831b250bccda8af887bdc6c8a@i2pn2.org>
	<vanut1$3jhrk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 15:00:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="260275"; 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: 5637
Lines: 82

Am Wed, 28 Aug 2024 14:47:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/28/2024 2:21 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 28 Aug 2024 11:44:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/28/2024 11:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 18:21 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 8/28/2024 11:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 17:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/28/2024 9:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:59 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/2024 7:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/2024 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.aug.2024 om 14:44 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2024 3:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.aug.2024 om 04:33 schreef olcott:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we assume that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) HHH is an x86 emulator that is in the same memory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space as DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) HHH emulates DDD according to the semantics of the x86
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then we can see that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get past its own machine address 0000217a.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we see. In fact DDD is not needed at all.
>>>>>>>>>>> When 100% of the whole point is for HHH to correctly determine
>>>>>>>>>>> whether or not DDD would stop running if not aborted *IT IS
>>>>>>>>>>> RIDICULOUSLY STUPID TO SAY THAT DDD IS NOT NEEDED*
>> Like Fred has been saying for a month, what is HHH(HHH)?
^

>>>>>>>>>> When without DDD it is clear as crystal that HHH cannot
>>>>>>>>>> possibly simulate itself correctly:
>>>>>>>> You may repeat it many more times, but HHH violated the semantics
>>>>>>>> of the x86 language by skipping the last few instructions of a
>>>>>>>> halting program. This finite string, when given for direct
>>>>>>>> execution, shows a halting behaviour. This is the proof what the
>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language means for this finite string: a
>>>>>>>> halting program.
>> It is very telling to see where these exchanges peter out (haha).
> A dishonest dodge way form the subject of DDD emulated by HHH.
To the subject of what?

>>>>>>>> And when the x86 string tells the computer that there is a
>>>>>>>> halting program and the simulator decides that there is a
>>>>>>>> non-halting program, this proves that the simulation is
>>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>>>> Clear as crystal: the semantics of the x86 string is proved by
>>>>>>>> its direct execution.
>>>>>>>> This is shown in the example below, where the direct execution of
>>>>>>>> HHH halts, but HHH decides that it does not halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By this same reasoning that fact that you are no longer hungry
>>>>>>> AFTER you have eaten proves that you never needed to eat.
>>>>>>> The behavior of DDD before HHH aborts its simulation (before it
>>>>>>> has eaten) it not the same behavior after DDD has been aborted
>>>>>>> (after it has eaten).
>> I do not understand this. There is no „after having been aborted”.
> The directly executed DDD() has different behavior than DDD emulated by
> HHH because DDD() benefits from HHH having already aborted its emulation
> of DDD. HHH itself does not receive this benefit.
„Already”? DDD and it’s simulation live in entirely different spaces.
There can be absolutely no influence.

>>>>>> If hungry stands for fear for infinite recursion
>>>>> hungry stands for will not stop running unless aborted just like
>>>>> will remain hungry until eating is always true whenever hungry
>>>> Your HHH will see a 'special condition' after a few recursions, abort
>>>> and halt.
>>> It is a design requirement that HHH halts if it doesn't halt it is
>>> wrong.
>> Then why does it report itself as nonterminating? (There is nothing
>> else in DDD that would cause that.)
> How could it do that? IT MUST TERMINATE TO REPORT ANYTHING.
???

>>> When DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
>>> language cannot possibly reach its own machine address of 00002183,
>>> then HHH is correct to reject DDD as non-halting even of HHH does this
>>> entirely by wild guess.
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.