Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 18:47:57 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 123
Message-ID: <v7je3t$5ouo$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me> <v7h3je$3lcvq$6@dont-email.me>
 <v7h55o$2a60$1@news.muc.de> <v7hv3j$3u91q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7io6q$1uji$4@dont-email.me> <v7j5se$3o7r$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 18:47:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3a4f88341f545a15904fc2e6278365ef";
	logging-data="189400"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19j8E2ANMTiiLDxVCHlvYrT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GeUwZYYJva4iZUEy7hov/8ufKYQ=
In-Reply-To: <v7j5se$3o7r$9@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 5858

Op 21.jul.2024 om 16:27 schreef olcott:
> On 7/21/2024 5:34 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 21.jul.2024 om 05:25 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>
>>>> In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>> Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I 
>>>>> will
>>>>> repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
>>>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>>>>
>>>> This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but
>>>> one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
>>>>
>>>> Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
>>>> Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
>>>> same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract 
>>>> reasoning,
>>>> combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
>>>> learning at all.
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have made slight changes to what I have been saying nearly every day.
>>> This is my newest clearest way of saying it:
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> DDD correctly simulated by any pure function HHH cannot
>>> possibly reach its own return instruction.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Which proves that the simulation is not correct.
>>
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002174] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
> 
> When you disagree with the semantics of the meaning
> of the x86 machine code instructions of DDD you are
> taking a break from reality.
> 

But since it is *you* who does not understand that skipping instructions 
is against the semantics of the meaning of the x86 language, we know who 
is far from reality.
Skipping the last cycle of the simulation of HHH, after which it would 
halt, is against the semantics of the x86 language.



DDD is a misleading and unneeded complication. It is easy to eliminate DDD:

        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }

This has the same problem. This proves that the problem is not in DDD, 
but in HHH, which halts when it aborts the simulation, but it decides 
that the simulation of itself does not halt.
It shows that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

HHH is simply unable to decide about finite recursions.

void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}

It decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion, which 
is incorrect.

Olcott's HHH is programmed to abort the simulation after N cycles of 
recursive simulations. Therefore, it is incorrect to abort the 
simulation of HHH when the simulated HHH has performed only N-1 cycles, 
because that changes the behaviour of HHH.
Since the simulated HHH always runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, 
it is clear that HHH can never simulate enough cycles for a correct 
simulation, as is required by the x86 language.
Therefore, the simulation is incorrect according to the criteria olcott 
stipulated.
The conclusion is simple:
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times 
olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such 
a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end.
Olcott's own claim that the simulated HHH does not reach its end 
confirms it. The trace he has shown also proves that HHH cannot reach 
the end of its own simulation. So, his own claims prove that it is true 
that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end, which makes the 
simulation incorrect.

Sipser would agree that this incorrect simulation cannot be used to 
detect a non-halting behaviour.

Olcott does not know how to point to an error in this explanation, but 
prefers to ignore it. He even consistently removes it from the 
citations. So, I will repeat it, until either an error is found, or 
olcott admits that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

-- 
Paradoxes in the relation between Creator and creature.
<http://www.wirholt.nl/English>.