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: Overview of proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:36:01 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <752fe29ff88f4024bec5707b1fc4731b7a8a6875@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9abfu$2nabt$1@dont-email.me>
	<86c21e8a63450bf8b0c32f4f17ba0b503a914fe0@i2pn2.org>
	<v9d01i$39tbd$2@dont-email.me>
	<2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org>
	<v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me>
	<e614d6b981fd5fa6eefc84894a14448d4663e3c7@i2pn2.org>
	<v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me>
	<64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
	<v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me>
	<b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org>
	<v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me>
	<d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org>
	<v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
	<8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org>
	<TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
	<2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
	<v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me>
	<d2309af812f88b94b2a64a422bf8240b54a0caae@i2pn2.org>
	<v9gghg$2cth$1@dont-email.me>
	<c6ecb410c80e2bd5516dfd0c4b239ff68393ebb7@i2pn2.org>
	<v9glm0$319k$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:36:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2522611"; 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: 3515
Lines: 35

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 17:11:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/13/2024 4:34 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 15:43:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/13/2024 3:38 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:30:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD
>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
>>>>> state.
>>>> If let run, the HHH called by DDD will abort and return.
>>>>
>>>>> H has never ever been required to do an unlimited emulation of a
>>>>> non-halting input. H has only ever been required to correctly
>>>>> predict what the behavior of a unlimited emulation would be.
>>>> Which it doesn't fulfill.
>> Can you actually reply to what I said?
H is required to report on itself, by being nested in D. H itself aborts,
so the D it returns to also halts.

>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
>> It's not about the individual steps, but their number. An incomplete or
>> aborted simulation is necessarily incorrect.
> *We can't move on to the next point until after you agree*
YOU can't just post your next step.

> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the semantics
> of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
An aborted simulation is never correct.

> (1) Yes you agree (2) No you want to be stuck in an infinite loop until
> you agree
I will never agree. So you are stuck.

-- 
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.