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 correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as
 non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:20:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <57b9a0121ded5bf5b2041c18bbce37fe09ff2b67@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me> <v742r2$s48s$2@dont-email.me>
	<210383b2ee318f68a96d94aec314ee8b93f79b7f@i2pn2.org>
	<v75u22$19j7l$4@dont-email.me>
	<fde630817c49562bc765bdbc98e16a1582bcad53@i2pn2.org>
	<v78mda$1smtm$2@dont-email.me> <v7d5cl$2t3ja$1@dont-email.me>
	<v7ds0o$30pvh$3@dont-email.me> <v7fs29$3f4g7$1@dont-email.me>
	<v7gd17$3hlc2$2@dont-email.me> <v7ikn4$1jv5$1@dont-email.me>
	<v7j2pg$3o7r$3@dont-email.me> <v7l3di$idv1$1@dont-email.me>
	<v7lnrf$luh0$1@dont-email.me> <v7niqp$13ghd$1@dont-email.me>
	<v7obbn$17h8r$1@dont-email.me>
	<2eecnR6fa9XiWzz7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v7tlin$2acgd$1@dont-email.me>
	<9KOcnbAqLvwnID_7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v7us2g$2gvh6$1@dont-email.me>
	<xEydncDTQ97yhD77nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v7v8gn$2m27k$1@dont-email.me>
	<fad91f57ff0a31257ab8ce5e2e0a47f4bd4c7bbc@i2pn2.org>
	<v809qo$2rabc$3@dont-email.me>
	<9651ca7a4eb67c679e7058b8b6f824ac693c11cf@i2pn2.org>
	<v80esq$2su8m$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 19:20:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="455621"; 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: 4463
Lines: 48

Am Fri, 26 Jul 2024 10:20:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/26/2024 10:13 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:54:32 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/26/2024 3:50 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 25 Jul 2024 23:25:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/25/2024 10:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/07/2024 01:53, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/25/2024 4:03 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25/07/2024 14:56, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/24/2024 10:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 23/07/2024 14:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/23/2024 1:32 AM, 0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-22 13:46:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/22/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-21 13:34:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-20 13:11:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:

>>> Then we know that HHH can see the the first four instructions of DDD
>>> have no conditional code that could prevent them from endlessly
>>> repeating.
>> True, but HHH does have a conditional abort. It should be coded to
>> recognise that, because one knows that at compile time already.
>> 
>>>>>> The whole thing with the slave instances might well be where the
>>>>>> bug lies!  That would be slightly funny, as I pointed out that
>>>>>> problem on some completely unrelated post, and this could be a
>>>>>> follow-on issue where it has caused observable misbehavior in the
>>>>>> code.  (Needs a bit more investigation...)
>>>>> There never is any actual bug with the simulation.
>>>> I bet my nonexistent soul that there are bugs left in libx86. Apart
>>>> from that, your use of the library may be buggy.
>>> That is irrelevant. We can see by the execution trace of DDD emulated
>>> by HHH that this emulation does precisely match the semantics of the
>>> first four x86 machine language instructions of DDD.
>> But not what comes afterwards, and HHH makes the incorrect assumption
>> that another instance of itself wouldn't abort.
> That it is beyond your technical competence to understand that unless
> the first HHH aborts then none of them do is less than no rebuttal at
> all.
Fuck your insults. I know that. Like you say, if the first one aborts,
all of them do, therefore the first one can't say it was simulating
something that didn't halt.

-- 
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.