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: Overview of proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior ---
 point by point
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:01:06 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dbcc92a502748c56b85d0cfed4b601007ba02c0f@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me>
	<b84374e766c199e1ba38ef1dc3bc8f6ab2c39dfc@i2pn2.org>
	<v91i97$3n4m0$1@dont-email.me> <v91unh$3rbor$1@dont-email.me>
	<v92gja$p1$3@dont-email.me> <v94m0l$ljf4$1@dont-email.me>
	<v95ae9$p5rb$1@dont-email.me> <v978dv$h1ib$1@dont-email.me>
	<v97j0q$ilah$2@dont-email.me> <v99lpd$25ri3$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9a88e$2923f$2@dont-email.me> <v9b4tr$2rdni$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9cvv5$39tbd$1@dont-email.me> <v9f203$3pfoq$1@dont-email.me>
	<v9fl4k$3se8c$2@dont-email.me> <v9fnd9$1ut3$1@news.muc.de>
	<v9fopi$3tfih$1@dont-email.me>
	<ef77ff8d4227299d82df4432496d419fe1131716@i2pn2.org>
	<v9g2jm$3uffi$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:01:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2476099"; 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: 3900
Lines: 49

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 11:45:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/13/2024 11:22 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:58:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/13/2024 8:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/13/2024 2:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 12.aug.2024 om 14:42 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/11/2024 2:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 11.aug.2024 om 13:45 schreef olcott:
>> 
>>>>> (b) Strawman-deception of changing what I said and rebutting that
>>>> That's a lie, too.  I've not seen anybody else apart from you doing
>>>> this. Indeed you're doing this as a response to Fred's last post.
>> Beautiful:
>>> Through something like mathematical induction we can directly see that
>>> DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "return"
>>> instruction final halt state.
>>> HHH is only required to predict whether or not an unlimited emulation
>>> of DDD would ever halt.
>> Not really. It should predict whether DDD *by itself* halts, not what
>> any simulator does to its encoding. It can trivially predict what
>> *itself* returns. By the way DDD's halting depends on HHH.
>> 
> It is objectively incorrect to disagree with the semantics of the x86
> language when one is assessing whether or not an emulation of N
> instructions of an input is correct or incorrect.
Again: what am I disagreeing with?
An aborted simulation of a non-halting machine is incorrect.

> When the measure of the behavior of the input is based on examining N
> steps of DDD correctly emulated by HHH to correctly predict the behavior
> of an unlimited emulation
> and DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
> instruction final halt state then the input to HHH(DDD) specifies not
> halting behavior.
HHH cannot simulate DDD (correctly).

>>> Thus when computing the behavior that this finite string specifies DDD
>>> never halts.
>> DDD halts.
And its description specifies its behaviour.

>>> DDD always has the exact same finite string of machine code bytes.
>>> This requires each HHH to always be at machine address 000015d2.
>> It also requires HHH to make up its mind whether it will abort or not.
Please respond.

-- 
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.