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 is correctly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 09:48:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <v70of6$61d8$8@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>
 <v6traj$3imib$7@dont-email.me> <v703f7$2ooi$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2024 16:48:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="315e0a3cec91d4c915c12e3bad83b2c9";
	logging-data="198056"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/gz9rJ1unisEcIuAsOsxWM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sK1Jhx5nCEMgZGXkXyHYvOExnRE=
In-Reply-To: <v703f7$2ooi$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6117

On 7/14/2024 3:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-13 12:18:27 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> See, not very convincing, is it?
> 

Likewise for people that do not know how to count to
five can disagree that 2 + 3 = 5.

When the source of your disagreement is your own ignorance
then your disagreement has no actual basis.

*You can comprehend this is a truism or fail to*
*comprehend it disagreement is necessarily incorrect*
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non
termination of HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

Disagreeing with the above is analogous to disagreeing
with arithmetic.

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