Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 11:03:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <v5ujvn$1550s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me> <v5sbpt$1kfbr$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sjsa$msl0$1@dont-email.me> <v5skc9$1kfbr$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v5smuk$n7a2$1@dont-email.me> <v5sorr$1kfbr$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sp4v$nnko$1@dont-email.me> <v5sr4t$1kfbq$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5srjn$o1o0$1@dont-email.me> <v5ssaq$1kfbq$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5st66$o7ss$1@dont-email.me> <v5su4q$1kfbr$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sv8o$ogo5$1@dont-email.me> <v5t0h8$1kfbr$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v5t1af$omq9$1@dont-email.me> <v5t3h4$1kfbr$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v5t470$t0hj$1@dont-email.me> <v5u2o5$1mj7k$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5u8li$12udb$3@dont-email.me> <v5ujm6$1na1q$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 18:03:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f83257e6e5a87f489aa8241c55498376";
	logging-data="1217564"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18WvKISVTvWBBxeo7HfmWTB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:siMxNkm/yPW7ZOrEBxeIi6gAgGY=
In-Reply-To: <v5ujm6$1na1q$3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3899

On 7/1/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:49:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard
>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
>>>>>>>> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH at machine address
>>>>>>>> 0000217a cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO
>>>>>>> DEFINED.
> 
>>>>>> DDD is  emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to
>>>>>> repeat the process until aborted.
>>>>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL
>>>>> return to DDD and it will return also.
> Right.
> 
>>> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not
>>> the behavior of the input.
>> When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior stops. DDD is
>> the input.
> Again: emulating does not change what the input does of its own. Aborting
> an emulation is premature, as the input does not contain an abort.
> 

*The title of this post is a lie*
*The title of this post is a lie*
*The title of this post is a lie*

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Loop);
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}

*Each one of these cases meets this criteria*

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer