Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
 reach its own return instruction final state?
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 10:31:05 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <45c655d39a3395ea716f26640a97dd0bb9ae2161.camel@gmail.com>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kou4$3b2ta$1@dont-email.me>
	 <v8lcir$3f6vr$4@dont-email.me> <v8ldcs$3fcgg$2@dont-email.me>
	 <v8lem0$3ftpo$2@dont-email.me>
	 <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org>
	 <v8lkdb$3h16a$1@dont-email.me>
	 <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org>
	 <v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
	 <cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@i2pn2.org>
	 <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me> <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me>
	 <v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
	 <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
	 <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
	 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
	 <dca317e236dd975a3f030ae92ea0aa343833f029@i2pn2.org>
	 <v8rpgd$15pid$1@dont-email.me>
	 <ad3a7354ca32b7b9adb23db743347f3f12aaec63@i2pn2.org>
	 <v8s1im$1b6r5$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 04:31:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ba3ab1694db62dff520b59608ef6a0cd";
	logging-data="1419425"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hq0U7m2iR1WbCcpSgj3PX"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.2 (3.50.2-1.fc39)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oywaGC0fi31wu0GDCxIbYcNyP3Y=
In-Reply-To: <v8s1im$1b6r5$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5416

On Mon, 2024-08-05 at 21:25 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 8/5/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 8/5/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > On 8/5/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > On 8/5/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 8/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
> > > > > > On 2024-08-04 18:59:03 +0000, olcott said:
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > On 8/4/2024 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott:
> > > > > > > > > =C2=A0>>>> =E2=88=9E instructions of DDD correctly emulat=
ed by HHH[=E2=88=9E] never
> > > > > > > > > > > reach their own "return" instruction final state.
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > So you are saying that the infinite one does?
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are n=
o=20
> > > > > > > > > > substitute for facts.
> > > > > > > > > > The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology.
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > void DDD()
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0 HHH(DDD);
> > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0 return;
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > That is the right answer to the wrong question.
> > > > > > > > > I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
> > > > > > > > > reaches its "return" instruction.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above,
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of
> > > > > > > emulation and not and direct execution.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > If you mean anything other than what the words mean you wihout
> > > > > > a definition in the beginning of the same message then it is
> > > > > > not reasonable to expect anyone to understand what you mean.
> > > > > > Instead people may think that you mean what you say or that
> > > > > > you don't know what you are saying.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > If you don't understand what the word "emulate" means look it up.
> > > > >=20
> > > > > DDD (above) cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction ha=
lt
> > > > > state when its machine code is correctly emulated by HHH.
> > > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > Only because an HHH that does so never returns to anybody.
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Do you really not understand that recursive emulation <is>
> > > isomorphic to infinite recursion?
> > >=20
> >=20
> > Not when the emulation is conditional.
> >=20
>=20
> Infinite_Recursion() meets the exact same condition that DDD
> emulated by HHH makes and you know this. Since you are so
> persistently trying to get away contradicting the semantics
> of the x86 language the time is coming where there is zero
> doubt that this is an honest mistake.
>=20
> Ben does correctly understand that the first half of the Sipser
> approved criteria is met. Even Mike finally admitted this.
>=20
> Those that disagree either are totally lacking in even basic
> knowledge of C or are liars.
>=20
> > > void Infinite_Recursion()
> > > {
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0 Infinite_Recursion();
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0 return;
> > > }
> > >=20
> > > Does infinite recursion ever reach its own "return"
> > > instruction halt state?
> > >=20
>=20

All do not matter. Since you modified the HP problem, you know you are not =
solving
the halting problem. It is POO Problem.