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: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 17:52:48 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <v63s4h$28goi$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> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 17:52:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6d34e4518a0045f34950758630129c85";
	logging-data="2376466"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/AXPAPWtpgvo6Rwfw8OLd4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lCP7fHM0v9LDxoDoMyATj9m6+CU=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v63jej$26loi$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4178

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:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are freaking thinking too damn narrow minded.
>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist which calls this
>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted (which may be
>>>>> never).
>>>> Whatever HHH does, it does not run forever but aborts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HHH halts on input DDD.
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt.
>>>
>>
>> That would be an error of the simulator, because it aborts its own 
>> simulation too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would return and 
> 
> You dishonestly redefined the problem so that it has no correct answer.

(Ignoring an distracting irrelevant hominem remark.)

If you think that "What time is a three story building?" must have a 
correct answer, you are wrong.
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.