Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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 is correctly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 07:18:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <v6traj$3imib$7@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>
 <v6repr$32501$2@dont-email.me> <v6tbpe$3gg4d$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:18:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52398669a80ff5113c36343403a598c9";
	logging-data="3758667"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+hau/wNB+TS0uiSlq43GPd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sQD5NuagoC+ahyf2oBtqq+7I0iI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6tbpe$3gg4d$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5245

On 7/13/2024 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-12 14:32:28 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I think he is less harmful that way. His lack of clarity and obvious 
> twisting
> of the meaning of words reduce the risk that anyone would believe what he
> tries to say.
> 

*This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
reject its input DDD as non-halting.

People disagree with this on the basis they they believe
that they can disagree with the x86 language. That is the
same as disagreeing with arithmetic, not allowed.

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