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: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 09:15:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a17d0bb7297495e1ca6884893b048dcae562b1df@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6ntmh$2bd9a$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6oomc$2fuva$3@dont-email.me> <v6qpcu$2uo3m$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6rb1f$30qtt$9@dont-email.me> <v6tbss$3ggjj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6trco$3imib$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 13:15:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3137774"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6trco$3imib$8@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3798
Lines: 69

On 7/13/24 8:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2024 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-12 13:28:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/12/2024 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-11 14:02:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/11/2024 1:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-10 15:03:46 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
>>>>>>> is the semantics of the x86 programming language. By this
>>>>>>> measure when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by
>>>>>>> each pure function x86 emulator HHH (of the infinite set
>>>>>>> of every HHH that can possibly exist) then DDD cannot
>>>>>>> possibly reach past its own machine address of 0000216b
>>>>>>> and halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For every instruction that the C compiler generates the x86 language
>>>>>> specifies an unambiguous meaning, leaving no room for "can".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> then DDD cannot possibly reach past its own machine
>>>>> address of 0000216b and halt.
>>>>
>>>> As I already said, there is not room for "can". That means there is
>>>> no room for "cannot", either. The x86 semantics of the unshown code
>>>> determines unambigously what happens.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of an infinite set behavior X exists for at least one element
>>> or behavior X does not exist for at least one element.
>>> Of the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs zero DDD elements halt.
>>
>> That is so far from the Common Language that I can't parse.
>>
> 
> *This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
> No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
> every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
> 0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
> reject its input DDD as non-halting.
> 

But every DDD based on an HHH that stops its emulation and returns, will 
itself return when fully correctly emulated or run. It is only HHH 
INCORRECT because it is only PARTIAL emulation of that DDD that doesn't 
make it to the end.

PARTIAL emulations do not, by themselves, prove non-halting.

Your disagreeing with the actual details of the x86 language isn't 
allowed and shows how much of a pathologcial liar you are. You just 
can't understand the difference between Truth, which says what actually 
is, and Knownledge, which says what we know of what is, perhaps because 
you think you must be "God" and know everythibg that is, but you are NOT 
God.