Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 23:29:07 +0000
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:29:07 -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>
 <Cp-cnbESQeGe_jD7nZ2dnZfqlJ8AAAAA@giganews.com>
 <15e7f185ebfabb20566b10fbf29acc2bf8ad4ea3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From: olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <15e7f185ebfabb20566b10fbf29acc2bf8ad4ea3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <FDKdncj_cLle9jD7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 76
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-LiJ4PTo7n/FzeotxkcxugbakRYTaRgfsRCaQ/uJ9fc/QKmcgKJJ72DZYgd4j6CVd5pyMflAzejutPL4!qQdXyajhTjiByiymGFkrC+JiFRDX3i+GIFZHg4PQMw9PtchDkuTIyx7iS+WFK2y4ZRGPX1TiQPg=
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: 4193

On 8/2/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/2/24 6:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> No, if the one and only HHH in the problem is programmed not to abort, 
> then DDD never halts.
> 
> You don't seem to understand that HHH is that (in a given example) HHH 
> is a fixed piece of code with a defined algorithm and behavior.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> because I like to answer the question that you seem to be really meaning 
> to be asking.
> 

In other words you are too stupid, as I expected.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott

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