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 connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <510c491cca5ec21422602a08b50610570596d735@i2pn2.org>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<510c491cca5ec21422602a08b50610570596d735@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:52:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <510c491cca5ec21422602a08b50610570596d735@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me> <v6ikv5$19h6q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jguf$1ctoi$5@dont-email.me> <v6ji1d$1dpoc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jig0$1ctoi$11@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:52:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2743986"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v6jig0$1ctoi$11@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3515
Lines: 58

On 7/9/24 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/9/2024 9:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 09.jul.2024 om 16:19 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/9/2024 1:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-08 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>
>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether a partial simulation of DDD simulates the return depends
>>>>>> on the simulator.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is false proving that you have insufficient knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> It is true. There are partial simulators that do simulate D(I) to 
>>>> its termination (if it terminates) and there are simulators that don't.
>>>> That you cannot imagine something does not mean it can't exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No pure function x86 emulator HHH can possibly emulate DDD
>>> to its termination.
>>
>> Indeed, no such HHH exists. This proves that HHH cannot possibly 
>> simulate itself correctly.
> 
> "Correctly" means must do whatever the x86 code specifies.
> You are in psychological denial causing you to be irrational.

Which means every instruction is followed by the emulation of the 
instruction after it or the emulaition is not totally correct, and 
something only partially correct is not actually correct.

After all, that IS part of the definition of the x86 instruction set.

> 
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
>>> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
>>> [00002174] c3         ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>>>
>>> *When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function*
>>> *HHH x86 emulator that can possibly exist* which calls
>>> an emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat this process until the
>>> emulated DDD is aborted.
>>
> 
>