| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v576d7$3sg5p$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:50:14 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 92 Message-ID: <v576d7$3sg5p$2@dont-email.me> References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v50o2t$2fh98$2@dont-email.me> <v51dc8$2jmrd$1@dont-email.me> <v53b0s$324b4$1@dont-email.me> <v53tjm$35vak$1@dont-email.me> <v565d9$3mg7e$1@dont-email.me> <v56iht$3or0r$4@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:50:15 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1e01ab324d9c33c6c7fdf928f339ec58"; logging-data="4079801"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HlpADPZ0Gv+ffMiEppjXN" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Gtr8PFBNYqf249JBB70vOITieJg= In-Reply-To: <v56iht$3or0r$4@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 5296 Op 22.jun.2024 om 15:11 schreef olcott: > On 6/22/2024 4:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:01 schreef olcott: >>> On 6/21/2024 2:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 20.jun.2024 om 16:12 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 6/20/2024 3:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 20.jun.2024 om 02:00 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> This shows all of the steps of HH0 simulating DDD >>>>>>> calling a simulated HH0 simulating DDD >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/HH0_(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf >>>>>>> *Some of the key instructions are color coded* >>>>>>> GREEN---DebugStep Address >>>>>>> RED-----HH Address >>>>>>> YELLOW--All of the DDD instructions >>>>>>> CYAN----Return from DebugStep to Decide_Halting_HH >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>> [000020a2] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [000020a3] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD >>>>>>> [000020aa] e8f3f9ffff call 00001aa2 ; call H0 >>>>>>> [000020af] 83c404 add esp,+04 ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [000020b2] 5d pop ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [000020b3] c3 ret ; never gets here >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020b3] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly which step of DDD emulated by H0 was emulated >>>>>>> incorrectly such that this emulation would be complete? >>>>>>> AKA DDD emulated by H0 reaches machine address [000020b3] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If the simulation of a program with a loop of 5 iterations is >>>>>> aborted after 3 iterations, all instructions are correctly >>>>>> simulated. Nevertheless, it is an incorrect simulation, because it >>>>>> should simulate up to the final state of the program. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would be helpful if you answer the actual question being asked >>>>> right here and thus not answer some other question that was asked >>>>> somewhere else. >>>> >>>> If you do not understand that I answered the question why the >>>> simulation is incorrect, it is hopeless. The question which >>>> instruction is incorrect is not the right question. >>>> >>> >>> If you say that something is incorrect and can't be specific >>> then your rebuttal is pure bluster with no actual basis. >>> >> >> If ..., but that condition is not present, so the 'then' does not apply. >> This makes the sentence completely superfluous. I would expect better >> from someone who claims to be an experienced programmer. >> >> But since I pointed out in a very detailed way, why it is incorrect, >> your reply shows that you do not understand where you are talking >> about, which then becomes utterly nonsense. >> >> The question which instruction is incorrectly simulated already shows >> your error. The error is not that an instruction is simulated >> incorrectly, but that some instruction are not simulated at all. >> Why is that already over your head? >> > > It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents > to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that > this call DOES NOT RETURN. > > It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents > to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that > this call DOES RETURN. > > I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts. > We know that 'verified fact' for you means 'my wish'. Your wishes are irrelevant. The simulation of DDD by HH0 does not return, because it was aborted prematurely. HH0 aborts after N levels of recursive simulation, but it simulates only N-1 levels of recursive simulation of itself. So, the abort is one level too soon. Why do you insist that N is infinite? Don't you see that the input that DDD presents is independent to whom it is presented? Of course, you will not try to find errors in what I say, in order to protect yourself against not finding any error. Probably, you will just repeat an old baseless claim.