Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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
Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 17:21:47 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me> <v6ikv5$19h6q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jguf$1ctoi$5@dont-email.me> <v6ji1d$1dpoc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jig0$1ctoi$11@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 17:21:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f8ca44fc674f1b77eeed6105e880097";
	logging-data="1511034"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/N5rXlfOJYJd2GkhhYG3P2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PTDXksWNLUNK8hQ8Cr18LGgoG1U=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v6jig0$1ctoi$11@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4713

Op 09.jul.2024 om 16:46 schreef olcott:
> On 7/9/2024 9:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 09.jul.2024 om 16:19 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/9/2024 1:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-08 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> <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>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether a partial simulation of DDD simulates the return depends
>>>>>> on the simulator.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is false proving that you have insufficient knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> It is true. There are partial simulators that do simulate D(I) to 
>>>> its termination (if it terminates) and there are simulators that don't.
>>>> That you cannot imagine something does not mean it can't exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No pure function x86 emulator HHH can possibly emulate DDD
>>> to its termination.
>>
>> Indeed, no such HHH exists. This proves that HHH cannot possibly 
>> simulate itself correctly.
> 
> "Correctly" means must do whatever the x86 code specifies.

And since the x86 code never specifies an abort, it is incorrect to 
abort halfway a simulation that would halt. We know it would halt, 
because other simulators show that it halts when HHH is correctly simulated.
If you want to deny this truth, point to the specification of the x86 
language where it says that a program must be aborted. It is irrational 
to defend an unneeded abort with a reference to the x86 specifications.

> You are in psychological denial causing you to be irrational.

Illogical and irrelevant remarks ignored. I know olcott has problems to 
recognize the truth, so I do not feel offended.

> 
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
>>> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
>>> [00002174] c3         ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>>>
>>> *When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function*
>>> *HHH x86 emulator that can possibly exist* which calls
>>> an emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat this process until the
>>> emulated DDD is aborted.
>>

And the fact *that* it aborts, makes the simulation incorrect (as Sipser 
would agree with), because the X86 code does not specify an abort at 
that point. Therefore, the only conclusion must be: No such HHH exists.
We are discussing an empty set of HHH,
because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly. HHH will always 
abort too soon, when the simulated HHH has only one cycle to go.

It is easier to see with the following program, where the unneeded 
complexity of DDD is eliminated:

        int main()
        {
          return HHH(main);
        }

The problem that HHH aborts after two cycles makes that it probably also 
aborts

void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}

after two cycles of recursion.