Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:02:34 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <v7m6rq$ogs3$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>
 <v7je3t$5ouo$3@dont-email.me> <v7lsq2$luh0$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 20:02:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ab0c04790edcdbcdbb42536aede3135b";
	logging-data="803715"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/livraf46dl68tt4x0b+rC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WOHJHXLGRvE3933teWzeKyG2vvo=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v7lsq2$luh0$7@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4548

Op 22.jul.2024 om 17:10 schreef olcott:
> On 7/21/2024 11:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> It seems that your lack sufficient understanding of
> ordinary programming.

Irrelevant nonsense ignored.

> 
> I am talking about hypothetical possible ways that HHH could be encoded.
> (a) HHH(DDD) is encoded to abort its simulation.
> (b) HHH(DDD) is encoded to never abort its simulation.
> 
> Therefore (a) is correct and (b) is incorrect according to the
> design requirements for HHH that it must halt.
> 
> It is also a truism that any input that must be aborted
> is a non-halting input.

It is a truism that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
Both hypothetical ways to encode HHH result in an incorrect simulation.