Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Very Stupid
 Mistake and Liars
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 18:46:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <833547fc4fcbf18f196b7198f221a665a1fa2da0@i2pn2.org>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqqnk5$28jtr$1@dont-email.me> <vqqonm$28lh2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqqq09$28kp8$1@dont-email.me> <vqqq7s$29buv$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqqrin$28lh2$4@dont-email.me> <vqs9ck$2lqb2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 22:46:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4099233"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vqs9ck$2lqb2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 3/12/25 11:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/11/2025 9:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 12/03/2025 02:06, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2025 9:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/2025 9:41 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 12/03/2025 01:22, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
>>>>>> own "return" instruction and terminates normally
>>>>>> in any finite or infinite number of correctly
>>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it correctly simulates infinitely many steps, it doesn't 
>>>>> terminate. Look up "infinite".
>>>>>
>>>>> But your task is to decide for /any/ program, not just DDD. That, 
>>>>> as you are so fond of saying, is 'stipulated', and you can't get 
>>>>> out of it. The whole point of the Entscheidungsproblem is its 
>>>>> universality. Ignore that, and you have nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that his code has HHH(DD) returning 0, 
>>>
>>> THESE ARE THE WORDS ANYONE THAT DODGES THESE
>>> WORDS WILL BE TAKEN FOR A LIAR
>>
>>
>> "THESE ARE THE WORDS ANYONE THAT DODGES THESE WORDS WILL BE TAKEN FOR 
>> A LIAR"?
>>
>> Is that all you've got? Nothing on your function's inability to 
>> correctly decide on whether arbitrary input programs terminate, which 
>> is a ***stipulated*** requirement for the problem.
>>
>> Without that, all you have is loud.
>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH never reaches its
>>> own "return" instruction and terminates normally
>>> in any finite or infinite number of correctly
>>> simulated steps.
>>
>> Look up "infinite". You keep using that word. I do not think it means 
>> what you think it means.
>>
> 
> When N steps of DDD are correctly emulated by every element
> of the set of C functions named HHH that do x86 emulation and
> 
> N is each element of the set of natural numbers
> 
> then no DDD of the set of HHH/DDD pairs ever reaches its
> "return" instruction and terminates normally.
> 

WRONG, because "DDD reaching its "return" instruction" isn't defined by 
the HHH that emulates it, but by the proper emulation of its 
instructions either by a FULLY correct software emulator, or by its 
dirrect execution using the hardware chip to "emulate" the instruction set.

Your confusion on this point is the basis of your FRAUD and your ignorance.

Your failure to find ONE reliable reference that allows a PARTIAL 
emulation to define the final behaivor of a program just shows that any 
reasonable perso would understand their error, making you claim just a LIE.