Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict
 correctly
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:18:46 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bcbbe8bf6a4d4ce9e78810c4868bb4c9fa61fc28@i2pn2.org>
References: <v887np$gl15$1@dont-email.me> <v8a2j5$u4t6$1@dont-email.me>
	<v8asse$12hr3$2@dont-email.me> <v8aukp$12grj$1@dont-email.me>
	<v8b00m$12ojm$1@dont-email.me> <v8bchs$15ai5$1@dont-email.me>
	<v8bh32$15une$1@dont-email.me>
	<d89f03c5a605f010ec3c83c50137b983dc85848e@i2pn2.org>
	<v8bl2j$16ibk$2@dont-email.me>
	<9598b8ea0c68296492a4756938aefd1cec99df2a@i2pn2.org>
	<v8d527$1i7t1$1@dont-email.me>
	<3b9e705ebb74c4b330ecd39a954c79800dcf7660@i2pn2.org>
	<v8djm3$1kii7$2@dont-email.me>
	<38c0ee7259f870b3572b796bca1f7ed56b3f9283@i2pn2.org>
	<v8doun$1lugu$1@dont-email.me> <v8e5m0$1nrnh$2@dont-email.me>
	<v8ea8u$1oqd7$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 07:18:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1068970"; 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: 4671
Lines: 64

Am Wed, 31 Jul 2024 16:27:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/31/2024 3:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 18:32 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/31/2024 11:17 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 31 Jul 2024 10:02:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/31/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 31 Jul 2024 05:52:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 16:13:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 4:07 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:05:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 1:48 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 30.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 9:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 30.jul.2024 om 16:21 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 1:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-29 14:07:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I proved otherwise. When the abort code is commented out then
>>>>>>>>>>> it keeps repeating again and again, thus conclusively proving
>>>>>>>>>>> that is must be aborted or HHH never halts.
>>>>>>>>>> But the abort is not commented out in the running code!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I modified the original code by commenting out the abort and it
>>>>>>>>> does endlessly repeat just like HHH correctly predicted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and that modification makes HHH not call itself
>>>>>>> Not at all. It makes HHH stop aborting DDD.
>>>>>>> So that HHH and DDD endlessly repeat.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Commenting out a section changes the program.
>>>>> This conclusively proving that this section was required.
>>>> When you put in the abort, it also appears in the simulated HHH.
>>>>
>>> Yet this is unreachable in the same way that in a single file foot
>>> race with everyone going the same speed and everyone 15 feet ahead of
>>> the next person that the first person must win.
>> 
>> Yet that is no reason for the person in front to kill all other people,
>> because otherwise they would not stop running.
>> The first person will stop at the finish, the second person will stop
>> at the finish, the third .... etc.
>> 
>> There is no reason to assume that there are persons that will keep
>> running indefinitely.
They will run unto the finish.

>>> The outermost HHH sees that it must abort one whole execution trace
>>> sooner than the next inner HHH.
>> But it is wrong to assume that the simulated HHH would not have halted
>> when not aborted.
> It has never been an assumption is has always been a tautology that has
> always been over your head. Joes may be catching up with the Linz proof.
If one of them aborts, all of them do.

>> This is proved when HHH is simulated by a non-aborting simulator, such
>> as HHH1. A correct simulation shows that the simulated HHH does not
>> need to be aborted.
> When we remove the abort code it keeps repeating. When we don't remove
> the abort code it gets aborted.
Also, the simulated HHH aborts and the simulating HHH doesn't trigger.

-- 
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.