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: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 20:35:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <v7hokk$3phhn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me>
 <e975eef57ba6d3d4cc790818c05b7165443f7ce4@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h5b2$3m6kq$2@dont-email.me>
 <73e4850d3b48903cf85b2967ba713aced98caf96@i2pn2.org>
 <v7h9on$3muu0$1@dont-email.me>
 <09536cf44fc4c3d14b37641cf8fdc9e8a8c24580@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hept$3o0be$1@dont-email.me>
 <97884acd35091ddd67bda892c7a3dd28e188f760@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hftt$3o7r5$1@dont-email.me>
 <f74209ef7d87b6f7891e4a2b89cc18bfe7233810@i2pn2.org>
 <v7hkb2$3otgn$1@dont-email.me>
 <1c5729ae6d0a7bca84d24eec9f85bf30de70e3d9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 03:35:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9ab67b95e26d71c9bf3d4bab69c0e6c7";
	logging-data="3982903"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Kg7sqH0sSAmiloJvdM9W4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vz9GMLRXAywpLdc44veMaInA/0M=
In-Reply-To: <1c5729ae6d0a7bca84d24eec9f85bf30de70e3d9@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5844

On 7/20/2024 8:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/20/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/20/2024 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/20/24 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/20/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/20/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 4:06 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a design requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never stop running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>> You missed a couple details:
>>>>>>>>> A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not 
>>>>>>>>> classified
>>>>>>>>> as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be aborted; they 
>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>> simulator halt on their own.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its own.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH ever 
>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to
>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its input and HHH will stop running?
>>>>>>>>> Pretty much.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes 
>>>>>>>>>>> it not
>>>>>>>>>>> need to.
>>>>>>>>>> No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly 
>>>>>>>>>> exist aborts
>>>>>>>>>> its simulation.
>>>>>>>>> I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own return instruction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know that you are lying about this as you admit below:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, YOU just don't what the words mean, and reckless disregard 
>>>>> the teaching you have been getting, which makes your errors not 
>>>>> just honest mistakes but reckless pathological lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It may be that the simulation by HHH never reaches that point, 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but if HHH aborts its simuliaton and returns (as required for it 
>>>>>>> to be a decider) then the behavior of DDD 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simulated by HHH is to Die, stop running, no longer function.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, HHH is NOT the "Machine" that determines what the code does, 
>>>>> so can not "Kill" it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you are trying to get away with the lie
>>>> that an aborted simulation keeps on running.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, but the BEHAVIOR of the program does, and that is what matters.
>>
>> So you agree that DDD correctly simulated by any pure function
>> HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>>
>>
> 
> No, I will let you claim (without proof, so we can argue tha later) that 
> the simulation by HHH of DDD does not reach the return, but the behavior 
> of the DDD simuliated by HHH continues, to the return if HHH aborts its 
> simulation and returns, as the behavior of ALL copies of DDD do not 
> "stop" just because some simulator gave up looking at it.
> 

In other words you never understood that the input to an x86
emulator is a static finite string of bytes that does not do
anything at all on its own?

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