Path: ...!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: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 20:52:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <v7hpkv$3pmkh$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>
 <v7hnu6$3pd9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <f0dda3e0d0e85081d8ce0cdd494f5f1f8f8c89e3@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 03:52:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9ab67b95e26d71c9bf3d4bab69c0e6c7";
	logging-data="3988113"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ybM3wMA6Xy1iTkRfdZeMJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:itDQqo0VvujO3owXM73N1gSgv/c=
In-Reply-To: <f0dda3e0d0e85081d8ce0cdd494f5f1f8f8c89e3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6889

On 7/20/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/20/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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, 
>>
>> We are talking about real hardware here not figments
>> of your imagination.
>>
> 
> No, you are not. The "Hardware" would be the actual CPU chip which never 
> stops the program when it is running. A Simulator is just a piece of 
> software running on it, and what it does can't affect the behavior of 
> the actual CPU running the program.
> 
> 
>> When an actual x86 emulator stops emulating its input
>> this emulated input immediately stops running.
>>
> 
> Nope, that is you stupidity where you confuse the observation for the 
> facts.
> 
> It has been told to you MANY times, but it seems that you just can not 
> understand it.
> 
> The SIMULATION is an observation of the program,

Not at all. It is the same as a finite string of static data
interpreted by an interpreter. It is merely data within the
process of the x86 emulator. When the emulator stops emulating
it immediately stops.

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