Path: ...!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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 21:17:32 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 21:17:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="53ee6a76ae1277aa2fa0ccc5a0217e91";
	logging-data="1849737"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+2G2YO6UpGFKdlcPo2xlaM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pofTEwc3O3FobG9taJthFl3yv98=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4316

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:
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>
>>>>> 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);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>>> that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant. 
>>>
>>> This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
>>> I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
>>> This does meet the Sipser approved 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>
>>
>> Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be irrelevant 
>> does not bring the discussion any further.
>> Sipser is not relevant, because that is about a correct simulation. 
>> Your simulation is not correct.
>>
> 
> If you disagree with this you are either dishonest
> or clueless I no longer care which one.
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
> [00002183] c3               ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
> 
> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.


HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon. One cycle later DDD 
would return, when the simulated HHH would have completed its own two 
cycles.
Therefore, HHH is incorrectly simulated by itself, because HHH aborts 
one cycle too soon and therefore misses the full behaviour of its 
simulated self, which aborts and returns, after which DDD returns.

You could not find any error in this reasoning, but you just ignore it 
and just repeat your baseless claim.
So, *you* are clueless and if you are not simply dishonest, your 
psychology is interesting. I have never met such a flat-out stubborn case.