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: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 12:32:54 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 16:32:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1329218"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4074
Lines: 76

On 8/3/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/3/2024 11:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/3/24 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/3/2024 9:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 15:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 02.aug.2024 om 22:57 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which proves that the simulation is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When are you going to understand that you are not allowed
>>>>>>> to disagree with the semantics of the x86 language?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not disagree.
>>>>>> When are you going to understand that it is a deviation of the 
>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language to skip instructions of a halting 
>>>>>> program,
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH(DDD) simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) to repeat the process.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it does this an infinite number of times the simulated DDD
>>>>> never reaches its own return instruction.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it does this a googolplex number of times the simulated DDD
>>>>> never reaches its own return instruction.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the PARTIAL SIMULATION of DDD never reaches the return 
>>>> instruction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For N = 0; while N <= googolplex; N++
>>> N instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[N] never
>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>>
>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never
>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>>
>>> Thus any HHH that takes a wild guess that DDD emulated
>>> by itself never halts is always correct.
>>>
>>
>> The SIMULATION of DDD never reaches the return instruction.
>>
> 
> Great! Finally.
> When we understand that the return instruction is halt state
> of DDD then DDD correctly simulated by HHH never halts.
> 
No, you are just proving you are incapable of learning.

The PARTIAL simulation of DDD done by HHH doesn't reach the return 
instruction.

The program DDD, which HHH partially simulated, does reach that return 
instruction, as does an actually correct simulation of DDD.

You are just stuck in your lie that a partial simulation is correct and 
snows that actual behavior of the input.

This just proves that you are just a pathetic ignorant pathological 
lying idiot with a reckless disregard for the truth because you 
slavishly hold to your own lies and ignore the actual facts.

Sorry, you just seem to be too stupid to reason with,