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: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 17:46:03 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ecb585af7ff3dd5fdcb07550f6279744134165bd@i2pn2.org>
References: <ves6p1$2uoln$1@dont-email.me> <vesemu$2v7sh$1@dont-email.me>
 <a9fb95eb0ed914d0d9775448c005111eb43f2c5b@i2pn2.org>
 <veslpf$34ogr$1@dont-email.me>
 <647fe917c6bc0cfc78083ccf927fe280acdf2f9d@i2pn2.org>
 <vetq7u$3b8r2$1@dont-email.me>
 <d8006439ae02f55ba148e6be1f8c4787905a999f@i2pn2.org>
 <veu30q$3cqfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <0280e32ff3acd1fff59f9637f14bf309150878b4@i2pn2.org>
 <veu4rl$3ct1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <00bf3eb3a01c08467b34e8d7e99ca3fa193aa531@i2pn2.org>
 <veuc3j$3e9cv$1@dont-email.me> <veue7n$1a01$1@news.muc.de>
 <veufr6$3f30f$1@dont-email.me>
 <31fed9bd45277332bcabc040d4b21de642356f63@i2pn2.org>
 <veukur$3ftj1$1@dont-email.me>
 <fa44d9c8febaa7919fbb19dcea581908274b5f32@i2pn2.org>
 <vf033d$3rc0m$3@dont-email.me>
 <2207e01c12262979e430c649025ef03f86b3b9bf@i2pn2.org>
 <vf055h$3rr97$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 21:46:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2793727"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vf055h$3rr97$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4727
Lines: 66

On 10/19/24 7:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/19/2024 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/19/24 6:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/19/2024 2:22 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:46:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 10/18/2024 4:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:18:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 10/18/2024 2:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2024 2:10 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The existence of the check has an effect right from the start;
>>>>>>>>>> besides, it is true the first time it is executed.
>>>>>>>>> So maybe you have ADD too. You can't seem to pay attention when
>>>>>>>>> things are explained to you many different times several different
>>>>>>>>> ways.
>>>>>>>> What you call "explaining" is in actual fact the assertion of
>>>>>>>> falsehoods.  This is usually called lying.
>>>>>>>> The variable Root does indeed affect your program.
>>>>>>> *I never say that it didn't*
>>>>>> You said nothing at all. Productive communication would have included
>>>>>> an agreement and clarification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "root" variable has NO EFFECT WHAT-SO-EVER on the correctness or
>>>>>>> completeness of HHH emulating itself emulating DDD until this DDD
>>>>>>> calls HHH(DDD).
>>>>>> DDD does nothing else but call HHH, and Root is part of HHH, so is
>>>>>> simulated the first time around.
>>>>> It is possible that I am not communicating this clearly enough
>>>>> The root variable cannot possibly have have any effect what-so-ever on
>>>>> the correctness of HHH emulating DDD or HHH emulating itself emulating
>>>>> DDD until the root variable tests true.
>>>
>>>> It has the effect of not aborting the simulation.
>>>
>>> It has this effect only after every competent software
>>> engineer can independently verify that it is correct:
>>>
>>> Emulating termination analyzer HHH emulates its input DDD
>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language (including HHH
>>> emulating itself emulating DDD) until HHH correctly determines
>>> that its emulated DDD would never stop running unless aborted.
>>
>> Except that the correct determination doesn't happen in the case that 
>> Root doesn't affect the behavior of the emulated DDD, so that impurity 
>> does have affect.
> 
> The root variable has no effect what-so-ever on
> the correctness of the emulation up to the point
> where everyone can see that HHH is correct to reject DDD.
> 
> 

But of course it does, be cause it is shown TESTING it in your long trace.

If it has no affect, why do you have it in there at all?

Try setting root to 0 in your program and see that it makes the outer 
HHH change behavior.

You are just proving yourself to be a liar.

It might not change the behavior of the emulation, but it does change 
the behavior of the "program" that HHH is emulating.

Sorry, but you are just proving your utter ignorance of what you are 
talking about.