Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 22:51:47 +0000
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:51:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by
 HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me>
 <bee1046fadd148969411fa9ff78d2f323a05bf26@i2pn2.org>
 <v8jla0$31dqd$1@dont-email.me>
 <9d0aec4a510e2dbe0f3ae7f6318a657629f06a3c@i2pn2.org>
 <v8jmbh$31j2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <11b8b7e61fe533f27f1437030e79e5abbc2aebf4@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From: olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <11b8b7e61fe533f27f1437030e79e5abbc2aebf4@i2pn2.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <Cp-cnbESQeGe_jD7nZ2dnZfqlJ8AAAAA@giganews.com>
Lines: 71
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-thYZbkmhc/a1cJkav7A7MVeAuLn2x0eZE89f3tTxtChYnPLNljF+BXDC56Y5joVCnX3igtrhOctk9i6!wgfdiqCHa0eV12lQpe1Wszj7uw8xAJaL607bNEGf/KJVNorajGq1A0RGzPKee3qZfNw1iZeVAgw=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 3859

On 8/2/2024 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/2/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/2/2024 5:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/2/24 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/2/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/2/24 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, but the only HHH that correctly simulates is the one that 
>>>>> never aborts, and thus fails to be a decider, and that isn't the 
>>>>> HHH that you actually have shown the code for, or claim to be right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is probably the least stupid answer here recently.
>>>> Mikko, Joes, and Fred would probably not do as well. Let's
>>>> see if the others can catch up to at least this much.
>>>>
>>>> Mike is usually pretty good at his analysis until recently.
>>>> He may not understand this key aspect as well as you do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you accept that the only DDD that is non-halting is the DDD that 
>>> calls the HHH that does a fully correct emulation of its input, and 
>>> thus doesn't abort it?
>>>
>>
>> I never said that. The fact the we agree on one key point may
>> be helpful to get others to agree to this one key point.
>>
>> You did not even get this one key point exactly correctly in
>> that you answered a different question than the exact question
>> that I actually asked. You did seem to get it better than Joes,
>> Fred or Mikko.
>>
> 
> Then you can't use that point, as obviously we disagree on a key 
> definition in it.
> 

We agree that if HHH never aborts then DDD never halts.

You did not even get this one key point exactly correctly in
that you answered a different question than the exact question
that I actually asked.

Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH 
cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?

Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH 
cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?

Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH 
cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?



-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
  Genius hits a target no one else can see."
  Arthur Schopenhauer