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: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict
 correctly
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:07:10 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d89f03c5a605f010ec3c83c50137b983dc85848e@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:07:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="888623"; 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: 2953
Lines: 40

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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH(Infinite_Recursion) and HHH(DDD) show the same non-halting
>>>>>>> behavior pattern in their derived execution traces of their
>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>> Hard to believe as their behaviour is so different and you don't
>>>>>> say what pattern the see.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Its all in the part that you erased*

>>>> We all see the differences between these two.
>>>
>>> They both correctly predict behavior that must be aborted to prevent
>>> the infinite execution of the simulating halt decider.
>>>
>> Except that the prediction for the second one is wrong. The simulation
>> of an aborting and halting function, like HHH, does not need to be
>> aborted.
> 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!

>> This is proved when it is simulate by HHH1. HHH aborts after two
>> recursions, which is not an infinite execution.
>> We know you really, really wants it to be correct. So, you are cheating
>> by suppressing part of the trace, in order to hide the conditional
>> branch instructions in the second case. But no matter how much olcott
>> wants it to be correct, or how many times olcott repeats that it is
>> correct, it does not change the fact that such a simulation is
>> incorrect

-- 
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.