Path: ...!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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:39:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <v66j74$2r26d$5@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> <v63s4h$28goi$2@dont-email.me>
 <v63s92$28dpi$3@dont-email.me> <v63t3r$28goi$6@dont-email.me>
 <v63tpd$28dpi$8@dont-email.me>
 <67a72a6769c3e0d96ba03aea4988153781ba01a0@i2pn2.org>
 <v665rb$2oun1$9@dont-email.me>
 <f808427bbd01195fa8ff6793e98c2ca162ac98de@i2pn2.org>
 <v668tr$2pc84$3@dont-email.me>
 <32a0b6d30a6fd14b8558749c01badb0692661dcf@i2pn2.org>
 <v66gmq$2qr6f$1@dont-email.me>
 <f090bcba5cd95396b1f72f8248f2b34a620de6da@i2pn2.org>
 <v66icd$2r26d$2@dont-email.me>
 <51dfef045efd98da454fa70892a3a8e3abb33d22@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 18:39:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c";
	logging-data="2984141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+cNKzZx8NLqgPsbNB8yW7V"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MlFPw4TIYXVysjjj24c2MqOF18g=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <51dfef045efd98da454fa70892a3a8e3abb33d22@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5827

On 7/4/2024 11:32 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 11:24:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/4/2024 11:22 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 10:56:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 7/4/2024 10:07 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:43:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 8:38 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:50:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 5:38 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:21:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless
>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is unable to simulate main correctly, because it unable to
>>>>>>>>>>> simulate itself correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>> The 'unless phrase' is misleading, because we are talking about
>>>>>>>>>>> a H *does* abort. Dreaming of one that does not abort, is
>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant. The correctly simulated main would stop, because
>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated H is only one cycle away from its return when its
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation is aborted.
>>>>>>>>>> HHH is required to report on what would happen if HHH did not
>>>>>>>>>> abort.
>>>>>>>>>> HHH is forbidden from getting its own self stuck in infinite
>>>>>>>>>> execution. Emulated instances of itself is not its actual self.
>>>>>>>>> No. HHH is simulating itself, not a different function that does
>>>>>>>>> not abort. All calls are instances of the same code with the same
>>>>>>>>> parameters. They all do the same thing: aborting.
>>>>>>>> HHH always meets its abort criteria first because it always sees
>>>>>>>> at least one fully execution trace of DDD before the next inner
>>>>>>>> one. It is stupidly incorrect to think that HHH can wait on the
>>>>>>>> next one.
>>>>>>> Stupidly incorrect is thinking that the next one wouldn’t abort
>>>>>>> just because that part isn’t simulated.
>>>>>> Unless the outermost one aborts none of them do.
>>>>> Since the outermost aborts, all of them do.
>>> The inner ones ARE abortED, which prevents THEM from aborting.
>> They all use the exact same code.
>> The outer one meets its abort criteria first.
> The inner ones have the same criterion.
>> This means unless the outer one aborts NONE OF THEM ABORT.
> Only because that is not simulated yet. That doesn’t mean that they
> run forever.
> 

Unless the outer one aborts none of them
abort and they run until out-of-memory error.

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