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: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 21:46:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f0dda3e0d0e85081d8ce0cdd494f5f1f8f8c89e3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me>
 <e975eef57ba6d3d4cc790818c05b7165443f7ce4@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h5b2$3m6kq$2@dont-email.me>
 <73e4850d3b48903cf85b2967ba713aced98caf96@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h9on$3muu0$1@dont-email.me>
 <09536cf44fc4c3d14b37641cf8fdc9e8a8c24580@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hept$3o0be$1@dont-email.me>
 <97884acd35091ddd67bda892c7a3dd28e188f760@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hftt$3o7r5$1@dont-email.me>
 <f74209ef7d87b6f7891e4a2b89cc18bfe7233810@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hkb2$3otgn$1@dont-email.me>
 <1c5729ae6d0a7bca84d24eec9f85bf30de70e3d9@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hnu6$3pd9s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 01:46:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3938152"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v7hnu6$3pd9s$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6836
Lines: 133

On 7/20/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/20/2024 8:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/20/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/20/2024 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/24 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 4:06 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a design requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>>> You missed a couple details:
>>>>>>>>>> A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not 
>>>>>>>>>> classified
>>>>>>>>>> as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be aborted; 
>>>>>>>>>> they and the
>>>>>>>>>> simulator halt on their own.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its own.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH ever 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its input and HHH will stop running?
>>>>>>>>>> Pretty much.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes 
>>>>>>>>>>>> it not
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to.
>>>>>>>>>>> No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly 
>>>>>>>>>>> exist aborts
>>>>>>>>>>> its simulation.
>>>>>>>>>> I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own return instruction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know that you are lying about this as you admit below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, YOU just don't what the words mean, and reckless disregard 
>>>>>> the teaching you have been getting, which makes your errors not 
>>>>>> just honest mistakes but reckless pathological lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may be that the simulation by HHH never reaches that point, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but if HHH aborts its simuliaton and returns (as required for it 
>>>>>>>> to be a decider) then the behavior of DDD 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simulated by HHH is to Die, stop running, no longer function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, HHH is NOT the "Machine" that determines what the code does, 
>>>>>> so can not "Kill" it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are trying to get away with the lie
>>>>> that an aborted simulation keeps on running.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, but the BEHAVIOR of the program does, and that is what matters.
>>>
>>> So you agree that DDD correctly simulated by any pure function
>>> HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, I will let you claim (without proof, so we can argue tha later) 
>> that the simulation by HHH of DDD does not reach the return, but the 
>> behavior of the DDD simuliated by HHH continues, 
> 
> We are talking about real hardware here not figments
> of your imagination.
> 

No, you are not. The "Hardware" would be the actual CPU chip which never 
stops the program when it is running. A Simulator is just a piece of 
software running on it, and what it does can't affect the behavior of 
the actual CPU running the program.


> When an actual x86 emulator stops emulating its input
> this emulated input immediately stops running.
> 

Nope, that is you stupidity where you confuse the observation for the facts.

It has been told to you MANY times, but it seems that you just can not 
understand it.

The SIMULATION is an observation of the program, that if it stops 
doesn't affect the actual behavior of the program in question.

After all, if you are running a copy of the program on your computer, 
and someone on another computer is debugging a copy of that program in a 
simulator and aborts the simulation, does you copy of it stop running?

No, because the actual running copies are not affected by a copy being 
simulated.

This seems to go very deep into a fundamental misunderstanding you have 
about what is truth that just makes it impossible for you to actually 
reason about things correctly. It seems you just have a mental block on 
this, perhaps due to your gaslighting yourself with your lies.