Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 ---
 STA
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:00:26 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e0d9ba731e9725d53a86bbf7e8d649e9af73867b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me>
	<9f2ff3ab9b99a7bb6dfa0885f9757f810ce52e66@i2pn2.org>
	<vsaam4$2sfhq$1@dont-email.me> <vsbi7e$1hblk$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsc6qi$27lbo$2@dont-email.me>
	<8a3e7e93e6cad20b29d23405a0e6dbd497a492ac@i2pn2.org>
	<vscegq$2fv3s$2@dont-email.me>
	<26f33bb039fda7d28ae164cfc4d0f582d4698f31@i2pn2.org>
	<vsclsb$2n4jc$1@dont-email.me>
	<36a4c76730b23cf78ddde73c723116b5380973a1@i2pn2.org>
	<vsctnm$2ub5m$2@dont-email.me>
	<4285ea3219a2d5f2d6c52e84697fa4e3d3dc80cb@i2pn2.org>
	<vsd18m$379dn$1@dont-email.me> <vsdjff$3o5ff$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsem50$th5g$3@dont-email.me>
	<77c20f5832db4b47f5226dcb39bd2be7ba107a0c@i2pn2.org>
	<vsf8tv$1i673$2@dont-email.me>
	<5cb726749c8a7457af5da692f77c6a04bc0c7401@i2pn2.org>
	<vsfdqb$1m8qr$2@dont-email.me>
	<733db53c4b67cf1fbbd45fdf503b1d27539b7414@i2pn2.org>
	<vsfigf$1r8rb$2@dont-email.me> <vsge12$2qtmo$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsht4p$90ss$5@dont-email.me>
	<b0bc8e5efcc0d682388cd9bbf20cc671aa5cf76e@i2pn2.org>
	<vsi7lq$jd38$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:00:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2818780"; 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: 6268
Lines: 97

Am Tue, 01 Apr 2025 21:33:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 4/1/2025 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/1/25 7:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2025 5:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 01.apr.2025 om 04:19 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 3/31/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/25 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2025 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/31/25 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2025 5:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.mrt.2025 om 05:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/25 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/25 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES SPECIFY THAT IT CANNOT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL HALT STATE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS AND ANYONE THAT DISAGREES IS A
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DAMNED LIAR OR STUPID.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does HHH emulate the call to HHH instruction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, which were defined by INTEL, and requires the data
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated to be part of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is part of the input in the sense that HHH must emulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself emulating DDD. HHH it the test program thus not the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program-under-test. HHH is not asking does itself halt? It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was encoded to always halt for such inputs.
Then why does it think DDD, which only calls HHH, doesn't halt?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is asking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does this input specify that it reaches its own final halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state?
No, your HHH is asking whether it can simulate the input.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you admit to your equivocation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD is NOT a program, if it doesn't have a DEFINITE HHH as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of it, and thus needs to be part of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The C function DDD specifies non-halting behavior to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer HHH because DDD calls HHH in recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation.
DDD doesn't specify anything "to" HHH.

>>>>>>>>>>>> But only a finite recursion. DDD calls an HHH that aborts, so
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no infinite recursion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating termination analyzer is always correct to abort
>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation and reject the input as non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>> when-so-ever this input would otherwise prevent itself from
>>>>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the input WILL halt, when it is correctly emulated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where "correct" is defined to disagree with the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHERE?
>>>>>>>> HHH1 correctly emualated EVERY instruction it came to, and
>>>>>>>> continued to the end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And HHH emulated every instruction is came to including emulating
>>>>>>> itself emulating DDD.
That's a tautology, as is that it didn't simulate those it didn't come to.
Note that HHH doesn't continue to the (existing) end.

>>>>>> Then how did it return an answer if it did this and never came to
>>>>>> an end?
>>>>>>
>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
>>>>> It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to stop
>>>>> simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its own
>>>>> termination.
>>>>>
>>>> But for a DDD that halts,
>>>
>>> on the basis of dishonestly changing the subject to a different
>>> instance of DDD, then the one proposing change of subject is
>>> committing the straw-man deception.
>>>
>> But all identical instances of DDD behave the same,
> 
> The execution context differs dipshit.
Then it's not a pure function.

> DDD DOES NOT F-CKING CALL HHH1 IN RECURSIVE EMULATION.
No, it calls HHH whether executed directly or simulated by whatever.

-- 
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.