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 understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 16:56:20 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <92096edc15182764a24ea7136ceb3d74e4f52c53@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me>
 <58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org>
 <v71mjh$bp3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <1173a460ee95e0ca82c08abecdefc80ba86646ac@i2pn2.org>
 <v71okl$bvm2$1@dont-email.me>
 <5f6daf68f1b4ffac854d239282bc811b5b806659@i2pn2.org>
 <v71ttb$crk4$1@dont-email.me>
 <60e7a93cb8cec0afb68b3e40a0e82e9d63fa8e2a@i2pn2.org>
 <v721po$h4kr$1@dont-email.me> <v75a0l$16bjt$1@dont-email.me>
 <v76dth$1cf96$3@dont-email.me> <v77sna$1o83i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v78grc$1rc43$7@dont-email.me>
 <159ee197e838dba6c5c6909dca74c8a14e136246@i2pn2.org>
 <v78uhb$1ud1t$1@dont-email.me>
 <049a13f967ba3113219beb2223852628643f850e@i2pn2.org>
 <v79a09$208km$1@dont-email.me>
 <4a999933a5d46fc107a48bd20c57b351c0bf5e43@i2pn2.org>
 <v7b808$2e2aq$5@dont-email.me>
 <71c39e9ce213567b8a958fb5b9fe253d29cf0bcf@i2pn2.org>
 <v7bcri$2fhfm$1@dont-email.me> <v7d1f7$2s8e2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7dumg$30pvh$11@dont-email.me>
 <583c6c30d66739d98122d012725474a7684d0440@i2pn2.org>
 <v7ehrk$3467a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:56:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3861184"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7ehrk$3467a$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4597
Lines: 77

On 7/19/24 4:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/19/2024 11:03 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 19 Jul 2024 09:54:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/19/2024 1:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Exactly the same input is presented to the direct execution and the
>>>> simulation, namely the x86 code of the program.
>>>> The semantics of the x86 language does not change in these two cases,
>>>> so a correct simulator should interpret the x86 in the same way as the
>>>> direct execution.
> 
> No it is not.
> Although you are the same person when you are hungry before
> you eat after you eat you are no longer in the hungry state.
> *Same person transitioning from hungry to not-hungry*
> 

I may be the same person, but people, and there hunger state, and 
mutable and change with time.

> Because or actions that HHH does DDD changes its state
> from needing to be aborted to not needing to be aborted.

But Programs are fixed, and their "need to be aborted" is an UNCHANGING 
attribute.

In fact, you CAN'T ask a decider about a changeable attribute, because 
the map being computed does have time as an input.

So, you are just admitting that you are nothing but an ignorant liar.

> 
> Same program transitioning from needing to be aborted
> to not needing to be aborted.

How? Programs are unchangable code.

> 
>>>      Before HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation the directly executed DDD()
>>>      cannot possibly halt.
>>>      After HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation the directly executed DDD()
>>>      halts.
>> What do you mean "after"? The outer DDD called by main? It will halt
>> even before HHH has aborted, because it is deterministic and actually
>> does halt. It makes no sense to say that something that will, couldn't.
>>
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    DDD();
> }
> 
> DDD() is invoked and calls HHH(DDD) that emulates its own
> separate DDD instance as a separate process.
> 
> Unless HHH(DDD) aborts its emulated DDD:
> HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD never stop running.
> 

You keep on saying that, but you admit that HHH DOES abort its 
simulation (so it can be a decider) and returns, so it returns to DDD>


Yes, I think we all admit that you you make THE ONLY HHH to not abort, 
then NEITHER HHH or DDD return, and HHH failts to be a decider.


The problem is since HHH is given a DDD that class the HHH doing the 
deciding, HHH can't think that it can abort but the one used by DDD does.

You are just using incorrect logic based on your LYING about what the 
setup is.

You are just proving your total ignorance of the basics of programming.