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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:38:30 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f808427bbd01195fa8ff6793e98c2ca162ac98de@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
	<v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
	<v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
	<dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org>
	<v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me> <v632ta$23ohm$2@dont-email.me>
	<v63jej$26loi$6@dont-email.me> <v63s4h$28goi$2@dont-email.me>
	<v63s92$28dpi$3@dont-email.me> <v63t3r$28goi$6@dont-email.me>
	<v63tpd$28dpi$8@dont-email.me>
	<67a72a6769c3e0d96ba03aea4988153781ba01a0@i2pn2.org>
	<v665rb$2oun1$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 13:38:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2114256"; 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: 4040
Lines: 49

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:50:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/4/2024 5:38 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:21:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/3/2024 11:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:

>>>>>> Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly, you
>>>>>> are wrong.
>>>>>>          int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>          int main()
>>>>>>          {
>>>>>>            return H(main, 0);
>>>>>>          }
>>>>>> You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it does
>>>>>> not return.
>>>>>> DDD is making it unnecessarily complex, but has the same problem.
>>>>> main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.
>>>> HHH is unable to simulate main correctly, because it unable to
>>>> simulate itself correctly.
>>>> The 'unless phrase' is misleading, because we are talking about a H
>>>> *does* abort. Dreaming of one that does not abort, is irrelevant.
>>>> The correctly simulated main would stop, because the simulated H is
>>>> only one cycle away from its return when its simulation is aborted.
>>> HHH is required to report on what would happen if HHH did not abort.
>>> HHH is forbidden from getting its own self stuck in infinite
>>> execution. Emulated instances of itself is not its actual self.
>> No. HHH is simulating itself, not a different function that does not
>> abort. All calls are instances of the same code with the same
>> parameters. They all do the same thing: aborting.
> HHH always meets its abort criteria first because it always sees at
> least one fully execution trace of DDD before the next inner one. It is
> stupidly incorrect to think that HHH can wait on the next one.
Stupidly incorrect is thinking that the next one wouldn’t abort just
because that part isn’t simulated.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.