| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v4l87j$3m8b0$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 18:30:59 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 43 Message-ID: <v4l87j$3m8b0$2@dont-email.me> References: <v4kf3h$3h3iu$7@dont-email.me> <v4kfoa$2218$19@i2pn2.org> <v4l2mr$3l6pa$1@dont-email.me> <v4l6gg$3n5d$1@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 01:31:00 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f28c05d249972130f2ddc6107b08476"; logging-data="3875168"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rjoAOWKFakFvv2y+7TvDH" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ofCbctdzrW0XmgAcYtUJFzKFOpk= In-Reply-To: <v4l6gg$3n5d$1@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 2956 On 6/15/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 11:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 12:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> > On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>> >> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to >>>> >> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by >>>> >> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the >>>> >> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > Why? I don't claim it can. >>>> >>>> The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions >>>> at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] >>>> are simulated/executed. >>>> >>>> After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges >>>> from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D >>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D. >>> >>> Nope, the steps of D correctly simulated by H will EXACTLY match the >>> steps of D directly executed, until H just gives up and guesses. >>> >> >> When we can see that D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly >> reach its simulated final state at machine address [00000d1d] >> after one recursive simulation and the same applies for 2,3,...N >> recursive simulations then we can abort the simulated input and >> correctly report that D correctly simulated by H DOES NOT HALT. > > Nope. Because an aborted simulation doesn't say anything about Halting, > It is the mathematical induction that says this. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer