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: Because Olcott has made this error 500 times in the last three
 years...
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 11:02:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <v80hb5$2su8m$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v7uvbq$2h6oq$1@dont-email.me> <v7vh4j$2ndo6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v807vd$2rabc$2@dont-email.me> <v809pm$2rou5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80b35$2rabc$6@dont-email.me> <v80feq$2sh8c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:02:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="98ef4f11d97010b63c53911c6d37ff8b";
	logging-data="3045654"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VRalm9AiL2/XhEsYkbIhF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4wHJLuXHnKLFwwstujxImDW7/rg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v80feq$2sh8c$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3382

On 7/26/2024 10:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 26.jul.2024 om 16:16 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/26/2024 8:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 26.jul.2024 om 15:22 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 7/26/2024 1:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 26.jul.2024 om 03:49 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> If you understand the x86 language and can't tell how DDD
>>>>>> emulated by HHH differs from DDD emulated by HHH1 by the
>>>>>> following then you are probably lying about understanding
>>>>>> the x86 language.
>>>>>
>>>>> We understand it perfectly. HHH cannot possibly simulate itself 
>>>>> correctly.
>>>>
>>>> You are too stupid to know that a non-halting computation
>>>> cannot be emulated to completion because completion does
>>>> not exist.
>>>
>>> The non-halting behaviour is only in your dreams. It is irrelevant, 
>>> because HHH halts when it aborts. Remember, HHH is simulating 
>>> *itself*, a halting program, not another non-halting simulator that 
>>> does not abort and does not halt.
>>>
>>
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    DDD(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> When we understand that HHH is accountable for the behavior of
>> its input and not accountable for the behavior of the computation
>> that itself is contained within then we understand that HHH(DDD)
>> is necessarily correct to reject DDD as non-halting.
>>
> 
> We see that the only thing DDD does is calling HHH. So, HHH is fully 
> accountable for the behaviour of DDD and its code is included in the 
> program that must be simulated, otherwise the call from DDD to HHH would 
> result in an error.

No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation
that itself is contained within.

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

int main()
{
   DDD(DDD);
}

HHH(DDD) is accountable for the behavior of its input and is
not accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself
is contained within: the directly executed DDD();

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