Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<61213d31dda80b01a34ecfdc33f27490a242e7d4@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes <noreply@example.org> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:07:27 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <61213d31dda80b01a34ecfdc33f27490a242e7d4@i2pn2.org> References: <vegfro$lk27$9@dont-email.me> <velpm2$1n3gb$6@dont-email.me> <8f12bccec21234ec3802cdb3df63fd9566ba9b07@i2pn2.org> <vemc30$1q255$1@dont-email.me> <3b7102e401dc2d872ab53fd94fc433841caf3170@i2pn2.org> <vemhn0$1qqfr$2@dont-email.me> <bfa96cc6bd41f1351cf3c47ec5712b7fc3803f6d@i2pn2.org> <vemo4j$1roph$1@dont-email.me> <82cb937f8012d3353dde47aa2d8565883d10a92a@i2pn2.org> <veof7v$284qn$3@dont-email.me> <4b093cf3a6d52cfe4e763a81d623eb66c817cb7f@i2pn2.org> <veohia$29dtl$1@dont-email.me> <a70bf39f5d3d3ba1f34130dc60d735cc32c8f779@i2pn2.org> <veomn9$29dtl$3@dont-email.me> <b9f7bcdf67813f0f96d550b78ac6b2d25d414ee8@i2pn2.org> <veou4p$2baph$3@dont-email.me> <45e53fc60dfc649ed11a8704e5d860766dd88955@i2pn2.org> <vep10l$2brl4$1@dont-email.me> <8cb59c1760f051701155070c17b7828ef660aaad@i2pn2.org> <vep2fe$2brl4$3@dont-email.me> <1d42fdf05bce4ae265def55ab146459a6a15e78b@i2pn2.org> <vep4pp$2cb88$1@dont-email.me> <92373359ad257199f3190fc4ecf935bbc4d3017a@i2pn2.org> <vep6b9$2cmbh$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:07:27 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2418061"; 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: 5203 Lines: 59 Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 15:06:01 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 10/16/2024 3:02 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:39:37 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 10/16/2024 2:33 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:59:58 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 10/16/2024 1:47 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:35:01 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 10/16/2024 1:06 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:46:01 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2024 12:27 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:39:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2024 9:45 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:11:22 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2024 9:01 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:31:43 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2024 1:33 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Terminating C functions must reach their "return" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which DDD does. >>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS ALSO THE INDUSTRY STANDARD DEFINITION It is >>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated that *correct_x86_emulation* means that a finite >>>>>>>>>>>>> string of x86 instructions is emulated according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language beginning with the first bytes >>>>>>>>>>>>> of this string. >>>>>>>>>>>> You are not simulating the given program, but a version that >>>>>>>>>>>> differs in the abort check. >>>>>>>>>>> HHH is correctly emulating (not simulating) the x86 language >>>>>>>>>>> finite string of DDD including emulating the finite string of >>>>>>>>>>> itself emulating the finite string of DDD up until the point >>>>>>>>>>> where the emulated emulated DDD would call HHH(DDD) again. >>>>>>>>>> Whereupon the simulated HHH would abort, if it weren't >>>>>>>>>> unnecessarily aborted. >>>>>>>>> If the first HHH to meet its abort criteria does not act on this >>>>>>>>> criteria then none of them do. >>>>>>>> And if the first one does, all of them do. >>>>>>> In theory this seems true when ignoring or failing to comprehend >>>>>>> key details. >>>>>> In practice you programmed H impurely. >>>>> Which totally does not matter to the slightest degree when you have >>>>> the discipline to stay within the precisely designated scope of the >>>>> exact words that I am saying. >>>>> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each >>>>> DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls cannot possibly >>>>> return no matter what this HHH does. >>>> Exactly, because your nested HHHs do not abort. >>> In other words you continue to fail to understand that unless the >>> first one aborts then none of them can possibly abort because they all >>> have the exact same code. >> Then HHH should report itself as halting, when they would all abort. > They would not all abort when you pay close attention to ALL of the > details. It is utterly impossible for any of them besides the outermost > one to abort because it aborts before any of the rest of them see their > abort criteria has been met. Only because they aren't simulated. But they are still terminating programs. An infinite loop is still non-halting even if I never run it. -- 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.