Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:57:26 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <v72kp6$k3b1$1@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> <v70of6$61d8$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 09:57:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="eb7bc3c094cc39ab136406329ffd9913";
	logging-data="658785"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/IcP3tK7dX8QcmkOrPPY/n"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bW7QwM58UKIuy+JQaF4BVdomxIA=
Bytes: 6220

On 2024-07-14 14:48:05 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

A lame analogy. A better one is: 2 + 3 = 5 is a proven theorem just
like the uncomputability of halting is. Therefore, disagreeing with
2 + 3 = 5 is equivalent to disagreeing with the uncomputability of
halting.

-- 
Mikko