Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 03:12:55 +0000
Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
 reach its own return instruction final state?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
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>
From: Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 04:12:53 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.17
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <v8s1im$1b6r5$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <5VKdndWBS-oqCSz7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 77
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-nRFtopsIWDDgn72OlwilcDI2iTNp09roEDMTR8G2LrV/8EMZ0igzuUxyjAqEJjgt+3KlmJ55EEmZcWY!fnEFfvuiiM3xf2xmSefwAsEgJeCqoytN3kM1trU/4NLGyLLPYP4tD9aqv+ESWSZB0P8QWcfWPA/p!kYIoz9esqZoirz1yydTC75C6zZA=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40

On 06/08/2024 03:25, 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>  >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never
>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the infinite one does?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are no substitute for facts.
>>>>>>>>>> The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is the right answer to the wrong question.
>>>>>>>>> I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>> reaches its "return" instruction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of
>>>>>>> emulation and not and direct execution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't understand what the word "emulate" means look it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD (above) cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction halt
>>>>> state when its machine code is correctly emulated by HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Only because an HHH that does so never returns to anybody.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you really not understand that recursive emulation <is>
>>> isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>>>
>>
>> Not when the emulation is conditional.
>>
> 
> 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.
> 
> Ben does correctly understand that the first half of the Sipser
> approved criteria is met. Even Mike finally admitted this.

I don't recall doing that.  Please provide a reference for this.

(Of course, everything depends on what you take Sipser's quote to be saying.  I choose to interpret 
it as I'm pretty confident that Sipser intended, under which the first half is mpst certainly NOT met!)


Mike.