Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by
 HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 11:33:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 15:33:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1329218"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v8lem0$3ftpo$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3504
Lines: 66

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.

The actual program DDD, that was being simulated does, after the HHH 
that it calls aborts and returns.

> 
> If the simulation is ever aborted the simulated DDD never reaches
> its own return instruction.
> 
Nope, the PARTIAL SIMULATION of DDD never reaches the return instruction.

The actual program DDD, that was being simulated does, after the HHH 
that it calls aborts and returns.

> When we construe the halt state of DDD as its "return"
> instruction then the simulated DD never halts.
> 

Nope, the PARTIAL SIMULATION of DDD never reaches the return instruction.

The actual program DDD, that was being simulated does, after the HHH 
that it calls aborts and returns.

Your problem is you confuse the partial simulation done by HHH as the 
actual behavior of the program described by the input, which is actually 
what the direct execution does.

The fact that you can not understand this difference just proves your 
logical stupidity about programs. You have brainwashed yourself to not 
be able to see the correct answer, making yourself into a pathetic 
ignorant pathological lying idiot  who recklessly disregards the truth 
becuas he refuses to look at it.