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: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 22:52:42 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ac259a6a3abf03040d7c2fdc5050da590cdfd0a8@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>
 <45c655d39a3395ea716f26640a97dd0bb9ae2161.camel@gmail.com>
 <v8s2po$1b6r5$3@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 02:52:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1597749"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v8s2po$1b6r5$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5646
Lines: 100

On 8/5/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/5/2024 9:31 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Mon, 2024-08-05 at 21:25 -0500, 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.
>>>
>>> Those that disagree either are totally lacking in even basic
>>> knowledge of C or are liars.
>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>> {
>>>>>     Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>     return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Does infinite recursion ever reach its own "return"
>>>>> instruction halt state?
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> All do not matter. Since you modified the HP problem, you know you are 
>> not solving
>> the halting problem. It is POO Problem.
>>
> 
> It may seem that way if you make sure to not pay enough attention.
> 

But since you never pay attenetion to the rules, that just describes 
yourself.

You have admitted that you past two decades are based on a LIAR about 
working on the actual Halting Problem, as you admitted that you changed 
the definition of the probllem, and thus it is a different problem.

Sorry, you just outfoxed yourself and proved your work to be worthless.