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: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:30:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <v6q7vo$2rvqi$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$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> <v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jpe5$1eul0$1@dont-email.me> <v6jpqo$1e3jq$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6jqfg$1eul0$2@dont-email.me> <v6k6md$1h3a7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6k9ef$1hicb$1@dont-email.me>
 <04b97cd4a405abead92368522fcf77070bb4fa55@i2pn2.org>
 <v6l24d$1oqjv$1@dont-email.me>
 <a267bfdf93c6fc179d09a3f62f25003f033aaff1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6m331$1tj30$7@dont-email.me>
 <6d43f24547a3b170ce6f7a99e30ec60dec589f79@i2pn2.org>
 <v6n8ob$24dmg$3@dont-email.me>
 <7f9b731b2367a2bcf2883278ee5265d30a8f82d6@i2pn2.org>
 <v6nau1$24jgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <744d42e4d9d67b49cb1844a2651cb0c350760f0c@i2pn2.org>
 <v6nc22$2501i$1@dont-email.me>
 <c784fa694b9d68f5ace1d07c9870050681268fdc@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ori5$2fuva$10@dont-email.me>
 <56314b3bac257d0fc228c26f3c8c5eec40a87215@i2pn2.org>
 <v6q4cj$2r7qt$1@dont-email.me>
 <1fbe0efc5b030be11df07a930754d90ce56525be@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 05:30:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a53340e46817c86b736359d5ee28d54a";
	logging-data="3014482"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/h6bKanCxF9tH/D1SujbqN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OXjnQbWxgNWyBRN32/dNu3Ck/mM=
In-Reply-To: <1fbe0efc5b030be11df07a930754d90ce56525be@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6133

On 7/11/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/11/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/11/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/11/24 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 09 Jul 2024 23:19:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/9/2024 11:01 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > That means that HHH doesn't return, in particular that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > abort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 to ∞ steps of DDD can't make it past the above line of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code no matter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That line being the call to itself -> it can't simulate 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *DDD NEVER HALTS*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD ONLY calls HHH...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it
>>>>>>>>>>>> to the second line of DDD no matter what.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have a dead cat in your driveway does not mean that
>>>>>>>>>> you have a peanut butter sandwich on your front porch.
>>>>>>>>>> It has taken you at least 1000 messages to see that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it
>>>>>>>>>> to the second line of DDD no matter what.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WRONG, you don't seem to understand the difference between DDD 
>>>>>>>>> and HHH's emualtion of it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would you bet your immortal soul that DDD simulated
>>>>>>>> by HHH (as provided above) would terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is a ambiguous statement, showing your attempt at deciet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
>>>>>> is the semantics of the x86 programming language. By this
>>>>>> measure when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated
>>>>>> by each pure function x86 emulator HHH (of the infinite
>>>>>> set of every HHH that can possibly exist) then DDD cannot
>>>>>> possibly reach its own machine address of 00002174 and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus you stipulate that you are a LIAR.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the semantic of the x86 programming language, the only correct 
>>>>> simulation is a FULL simulation
>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with the lie that
>>>> when 1 step of DDD is correctly emulated that 0 steps of DDD
>>>> are correctly emulated.
>>>>
>>>> Repent of this lie or risk damnation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WHAT LIE?
>>>
>>
>> When 1,2,3... ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by
>> HHH it is a lie to say that this many instructions were
>> not correctly emulated and you know it.
>>
> 
> But only N instructions "correctly emulated" is NOT a CORRECT emulaition 
> of the instructions of DDD/HHH
> 

I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!
I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!
I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!
I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!
I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!

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