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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 10:38:36 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <67a72a6769c3e0d96ba03aea4988153781ba01a0@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
	<v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
	<v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
	<dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org>
	<v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me> <v632ta$23ohm$2@dont-email.me>
	<v63jej$26loi$6@dont-email.me> <v63s4h$28goi$2@dont-email.me>
	<v63s92$28dpi$3@dont-email.me> <v63t3r$28goi$6@dont-email.me>
	<v63tpd$28dpi$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 10:38:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2114256"; 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: 5678
Lines: 101

Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:21:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/3/2024 11:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/3/2024 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows that when HHH emulates the machine language of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulations so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant does not bring the discussion any further. Sipser
>>>>>>>>>>>> is not relevant, because that is about a correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your simulation is not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you disagree with this you are either dishonest or clueless
>>>>>>>>>>> I no longer care which one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are freaking thinking too damn narrow minded.
>>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist which calls
>>>>>>>>> this emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted
>>>>>>>>> (which may be never).
>>>>>>>> Whatever HHH does, it does not run forever but aborts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH halts on input DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would be an error of the simulator, because it aborts its own
>>>>>> simulation too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would
>>>>>> return and
>>>>>
>>>>> You dishonestly redefined the problem so that it has no correct
>>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>> (Ignoring an distracting irrelevant hominem remark.)
>>>>
>>>> If you think that "What time is a three story building?" must have a
>>>> correct answer, you are wrong.
>>>> Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly, you
>>>> are wrong.
>>>>
>>>>         int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>
>>>>         int main()
>>>>         {
>>>>           return H(main, 0);
>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>> You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it does not
>>>> return.
>>>> DDD is making it unnecessarily complex, but has the same problem.
>>>
>>> main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.
>>>
>> HHH is unable to simulate main correctly, because it unable to simulate
>> itself correctly.
>> The 'unless phrase' is misleading, because we are talking about a H
>> *does* abort. Dreaming of one that does not abort, is irrelevant.
>> The correctly simulated main would stop, because the simulated H is
>> only one cycle away from its return when its simulation is aborted.
> 
> HHH is required to report on what would happen if HHH did not abort. HHH
> is forbidden from getting its own self stuck in infinite execution.
> Emulated instances of itself is not its actual self.
No. HHH is simulating itself, not a different function that does not
abort. All calls are instances of the same code with the same parameters.
They all do the same thing: aborting.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.