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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:57:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c945d78d4b676b9f1e3182a75b4ef491aaf8471d@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org>
 <v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me> <v632ta$23ohm$2@dont-email.me>
 <v63jej$26loi$6@dont-email.me> <v63s4h$28goi$2@dont-email.me>
 <v63s92$28dpi$3@dont-email.me> <v63t3r$28goi$6@dont-email.me>
 <v63tpd$28dpi$8@dont-email.me>
 <67a72a6769c3e0d96ba03aea4988153781ba01a0@i2pn2.org>
 <v665rb$2oun1$9@dont-email.me>
 <f808427bbd01195fa8ff6793e98c2ca162ac98de@i2pn2.org>
 <v668tr$2pc84$3@dont-email.me>
 <32a0b6d30a6fd14b8558749c01badb0692661dcf@i2pn2.org>
 <v66gmq$2qr6f$1@dont-email.me>
 <f090bcba5cd95396b1f72f8248f2b34a620de6da@i2pn2.org>
 <v66icd$2r26d$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:57:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2132707"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v66icd$2r26d$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5631
Lines: 77

On 7/4/24 12:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2024 11:22 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 10:56:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/4/2024 10:07 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:43:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/4/2024 8:38 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:50:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 5:38 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:21:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>             int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>>>>>>             int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>             {
>>>>>>>>>>>>               return H(main, 0);
>>>>>>>>>>>>             }
>>>>>>>>>>>> You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it
>>>>>>>>>>>> does not return.
>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD is making it unnecessarily complex, but has the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>> main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>> HHH is unable to simulate main correctly, because it unable to
>>>>>>>>>> simulate itself correctly.
>>>>>>>>>> The 'unless phrase' is misleading, because we are talking about a
>>>>>>>>>> H *does* abort. Dreaming of one that does not abort, is
>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant. The correctly simulated main would stop, because the
>>>>>>>>>> simulated H is only one cycle away from its return when its
>>>>>>>>>> simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>>>> HHH is required to report on what would happen if HHH did not
>>>>>>>>> abort.
>>>>>>>>> HHH is forbidden from getting its own self stuck in infinite
>>>>>>>>> execution. Emulated instances of itself is not its actual self.
>>>>>>>> No. HHH is simulating itself, not a different function that does
>>>>>>>> not abort. All calls are instances of the same code with the same
>>>>>>>> parameters. They all do the same thing: aborting.
>>>>>>> HHH always meets its abort criteria first because it always sees at
>>>>>>> least one fully execution trace of DDD before the next inner one. It
>>>>>>> is stupidly incorrect to think that HHH can wait on the next one.
>>>>>> Stupidly incorrect is thinking that the next one wouldn’t abort just
>>>>>> because that part isn’t simulated.
>>>>> Unless the outermost one aborts none of them do.
>>>> Since the outermost aborts, all of them do.
>> The inner ones ARE abortED, which prevents THEM from aborting.
>>
> 
> They all use the exact same code.
> The outer one meets its abort criteria first.
> This means unless the outer one aborts NONE OF THEM ABORT.
> 

But since the outer one aborts, they ALL abort and are all halting.


You can't use conditions that are not met to prove what happens.

YOu seem to live in a world where what is doesn't matter, but what you 
make up does.

Since all the HHHs abort, we don't care about the DDDs built on the 
non-existanct HHH that doesn't abort, only about the ones built on the 
ACTUAL HHH that does.

Your live in a world of just make-believe.