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
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:32:28 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <v6repr$32501$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mito$bbr$1@news.muc.de> <v6mjlg$20sio$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mlfj$bbr$2@news.muc.de> <v6mlk6$21d9q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6nu2n$2bepp$1@dont-email.me> <v6op7v$2fuva$5@dont-email.me>
 <v6qoms$2ukg7$1@dont-email.me> <v6rat7$30qtt$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 16:32:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7af5eacf7ee35a6bd95a47fb26ac0889";
	logging-data="3216385"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX180Kzdrm7yP5NWZ7YMajOVq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:q72ljTlTNXCXb8SeKPraLCqBBfs=
In-Reply-To: <v6rat7$30qtt$8@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4072

Op 12.jul.2024 om 15:25 schreef olcott:
> On 7/12/2024 3:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-11 14:12:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/11/2024 1:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-10 18:58:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/10/2024 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 10.jul.2024 om 20:12 schreef Alan Mackenzie:
>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Proving that the simulation is incorrect. Because a correct 
>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>> would not abort a halting program halfway its simulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just for clarity, a correct simulation wouldn't abort a non-halting
>>>>>>>> program either, would it?  Or have I misunderstood this 
>>>>>>>> correctness?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A non-halting program cannot be simulated correctly in a finite 
>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>> So, it depends whether we can call it a correct simulation, when 
>>>>>>> it does
>>>>>>> not abort. But, for some meaning of 'correct', indeed, a simulator
>>>>>>> should not abort a non-halting program either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words he is saying that when you do
>>>>> 1 step correctly you did 0 steps correctly.
>>>>
>>>> That is possible as "correctly" has different meaning when talking
>>>> about steps from when talking about simulations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *No that is always false*
>>> When you did one anythings correctly then you did
>>> more than zero anythings correctly.
>>
>> If I only correcly do one thing that is not a part of my routine then
>> I don't do my routine correctly. If I do correctly every part of my 
>> routine
>> but do them in a wrong order I don't do my routine correctly.
>>
> 
> Fred was trying to get away with saying that when 1
> step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH that 0 steps
> were emulated correctly.
> 

Olcott has a problem with the English language.
I said that when a program needs 2 cycles of simulation, it is incorrect 
to abort after 1 cycle and decide it is non-halting.
His problem seems to be that he thinks that skipping x86 instructions in 
the simulation does not change the behaviour of a program.

There are more situations where he seems to have a problem with the 
English language. He thinks that everything greater than 2 equals 
infinity. When a program has more than two recursions, he thinks it is 
non-halting.

It is very difficult to discuss with someone with such a poor 
understanding of the English language, because he continuously twists 
the meaning of words, both his own words as well as the words of his 
opponents.