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 knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
 reach its own return instruction final state?
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 00:08:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9959d3a939d49ec30579ddaf2a628ca89821f29f@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> <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
 <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <dca317e236dd975a3f030ae92ea0aa343833f029@i2pn2.org>
 <v8rpgd$15pid$1@dont-email.me>
 <ad3a7354ca32b7b9adb23db743347f3f12aaec63@i2pn2.org>
 <v8s1im$1b6r5$1@dont-email.me>
 <5VKdndWBS-oqCSz7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v8s4rc$1bo1b$1@dont-email.me>
 <d83da88bed605deb7fa9d11f19f3fe6c2bfb2eb0@i2pn2.org>
 <v8s71v$1c2mc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 04:08:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1597748"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v8s71v$1c2mc$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7254
Lines: 132

On 8/5/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/5/2024 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/5/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/5/2024 10:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 06/08/2024 03:25, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/5/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/5/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/5/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-04 18:59:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the infinite one does?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are no 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substitute for facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the right answer to the wrong question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its "return" instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of
>>>>>>>>>>> emulation and not and direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you mean anything other than what the words mean you wihout
>>>>>>>>>> a definition in the beginning of the same message then it is
>>>>>>>>>> not reasonable to expect anyone to understand what you mean.
>>>>>>>>>> Instead people may think that you mean what you say or that
>>>>>>>>>> you don't know what you are saying.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you don't understand what the word "emulate" means look it up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD (above) cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction 
>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>> state when its machine code is correctly emulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only because an HHH that does so never returns to anybody.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you really not understand that recursive emulation <is>
>>>>>>> isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not when the emulation is conditional.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Infinite_Recursion() meets the exact same condition that DDD
>>>>> emulated by HHH makes and you know this. Since you are so
>>>>> persistently trying to get away contradicting the semantics
>>>>> of the x86 language the time is coming where there is zero
>>>>> doubt that this is an honest mistake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben does correctly understand that the first half of the Sipser
>>>>> approved criteria is met. Even Mike finally admitted this.
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall doing that.  Please provide a reference for this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/2/2024 8:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>  > It's easy enough to say "PO has his own criterion for
>>>  > halting, which is materially different from the HP condition,
>>>  > and so we all agree PO is correct by his own criterion...
>>>
>>>> (Of course, everything depends on what you take Sipser's quote to be 
>>>> saying.  I choose to interpret it as I'm pretty confident that 
>>>> Sipser intended, under which the first half is mpst certainly NOT met!)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>
>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> It is certainly the case that DDD correctly simulated by any
>>> HHH cannot possibly stop running unless aborted.
>>>
>>> I don't see how any expert in the C language can deny that
>>> with a straight face. Four have affirmed it. Two of these
>>> four have masters degrees in computer science.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that this only works with the correct definition of 
>> "Correctly Simulated" but not YOUR definition of Correctly Simulated.
>>
> 
> I say correctly emulated according to the semantics of the x86
> language yet no one besides me understand that.
> 
> 

Which means you are not allowed to abort it, as the x86 processor 
doesn't stop. (unless you hit what you define as a terminal instruction 
for the program, in which chase the program is "Halting")

Also, call instruction need to be followed by the actual instruction by 
instruciton emulation of the code that is called.

You don't follow either of those, so your emulations are not correct.

And you just prove yourself to be a pathological liar.