Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:00:43 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
	<561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
	<v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
	<bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
	<XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:00:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2633776"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2798
Lines: 42

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:
> On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 
>>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
>>>> Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
>>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,
>>> That is what I said dufuss.
>> You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as
>> correct.
>> 
>>>>> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient
>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.
>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,
>>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller*
>> how *HHH* returns

>> HHH simulates DDD	enter the matrix
>>    DDD calls HHH(DDD)	Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates 
DDD
>>    second level
>>      DDD calls HHH(DDD)	recursion detected
>>    HHH aborts, returns	outside interference DDD halts		
voila
>> HHH halts
> 
> You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts its
> simulation [line 5 above],
> then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
> earlier.  You know that, right?
Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical
reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort
the same.

> So your trace is impossible...
Just like all the others are wrong.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.