Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 07:50:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c314111f7430ef25a01680b297bd76736ea180a7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@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>
 <5VKdndWBS-oqCSz7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v8s4rc$1bo1b$1@dont-email.me>
 <d83da88bed605deb7fa9d11f19f3fe6c2bfb2eb0@i2pn2.org>
 <v8s71v$1c2mc$1@dont-email.me>
 <9959d3a939d49ec30579ddaf2a628ca89821f29f@i2pn2.org>
 <v8s8gu$1capf$1@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 11:50:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1646586"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v8s8gu$1capf$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9613
Lines: 184

On 8/6/24 12:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/5/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/5/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/5/2024 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/5/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/5/2024 10:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/08/2024 03:25, 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't recall doing that.  Please provide a reference for this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/2/2024 8:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>  > It's easy enough to say "PO has his own criterion for
>>>>>  > halting, which is materially different from the HP condition,
>>>>>  > and so we all agree PO is correct by his own criterion...
>>>>>
>>>>>> (Of course, everything depends on what you take Sipser's quote to 
>>>>>> be saying.  I choose to interpret it as I'm pretty confident that 
>>>>>> Sipser intended, under which the first half is mpst certainly NOT 
>>>>>> met!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>
>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> It is certainly the case that DDD correctly simulated by any
>>>>> HHH cannot possibly stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see how any expert in the C language can deny that
>>>>> with a straight face. Four have affirmed it. Two of these
>>>>> four have masters degrees in computer science.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that this only works with the correct definition of 
>>>> "Correctly Simulated" but not YOUR definition of Correctly Simulated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I say correctly emulated according to the semantics of the x86
>>> language yet no one besides me understand that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which means you are not allowed to abort it,

IF you want to be correct.

> 
> It never meant that and you know it
> 
>      *until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never*
>      *stop running unless aborted*
> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If *simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D*
>      *until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never*
>      *stop running unless aborted* then
> 
>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> 
> 
> 

Which requires HHH to prove that a correct emulaiton of its input does 
not stop.

You are just proving that you are totally ignorant of EVERYTHING you 
talk about.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========