Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<1055ba7a1450658831b250bccda8af887bdc6c8a@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 19:21:02 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <1055ba7a1450658831b250bccda8af887bdc6c8a@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 19:21:02 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="34703"; 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: 5112 Lines: 77 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. >>>>>>>>>> Or are trying to distract the attention from the fact that DDD >>>>>>>>>> is not needed is a simple truism, a tautology in your terms? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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,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). >>>>>> 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”. >>>> 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. > Why to do dishonestly try to get away with the strawman deception and > change the subject to HHH? > > 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.) > 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.