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: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
 reach its own return instruction final state?
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 13:45:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7295d80cad171cd65cc39845362189aa88adca4f@i2pn2.org>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 17:45:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1342258"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4560
Lines: 87

On 8/3/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/3/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/3/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2024 11:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/24 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/3/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/3/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 9:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 15:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.aug.2024 om 22:57 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which proves that the simulation is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When are you going to understand that you are not allowed
>>>>>>>>> to disagree with the semantics of the x86 language?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not disagree.
>>>>>>>> When are you going to understand that it is a deviation of the 
>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language to skip instructions of a halting 
>>>>>>>> program,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) to repeat the process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it does this an infinite number of times the simulated DDD
>>>>>>> never reaches its own return instruction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it does this a googolplex number of times the simulated DDD
>>>>>>> never reaches its own return instruction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, the PARTIAL SIMULATION of DDD never reaches the return 
>>>>>> instruction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For N = 0; while N <= googolplex; N++
>>>>> N instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[N] never
>>>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never
>>>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus any HHH that takes a wild guess that DDD emulated
>>>>> by itself never halts is always correct.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The SIMULATION of DDD never reaches the return instruction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Great! Finally.
>>> When we understand that the return instruction is halt state
>>> of DDD then DDD correctly simulated by HHH never halts.
>>>
>> No, you are just proving you are incapable of learning.
>>
>> The PARTIAL simulation of DDD done by HHH doesn't reach the return 
>> instruction.
>>
> 
> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never
> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
> 
> So you are saying that the infinite one does?
> 

I said for the HHH's that do a partial simulation it does.

I did not say the one that did an infinite number of steps does, but 
each HHH has a different DDD.

a *FACT* you don't seem to understand due to your stupidity and 
self-brainwashing.

Your problem is it seems you INTENTIONALLY made yourself IGNORANT of the 
facts of the domain, out of a fear that it would "brainwash" you, but 
instead chose to brainwash yourself with your ignorance.

Sorry you ruined your life that way.