Path: ...!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: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict
 correctly
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:52:38 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <v8fes7$22ege$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v887np$gl15$1@dont-email.me> <v8a2j5$u4t6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8asse$12hr3$2@dont-email.me> <v8aukp$12grj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8b00m$12ojm$1@dont-email.me> <v8bchs$15ai5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bh32$15une$1@dont-email.me>
 <d89f03c5a605f010ec3c83c50137b983dc85848e@i2pn2.org>
 <v8bl2j$16ibk$2@dont-email.me>
 <9598b8ea0c68296492a4756938aefd1cec99df2a@i2pn2.org>
 <v8d527$1i7t1$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b9e705ebb74c4b330ecd39a954c79800dcf7660@i2pn2.org>
 <v8djm3$1kii7$2@dont-email.me>
 <38c0ee7259f870b3572b796bca1f7ed56b3f9283@i2pn2.org>
 <v8doun$1lugu$1@dont-email.me> <v8e5m0$1nrnh$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8ea8u$1oqd7$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 09:52:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c0ac17c3f9e00decd2248743b2f1a16";
	logging-data="2177550"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FhRkTAUsC+LRkqUAWUOv4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ylcMSuZFmgysganVNwMvudjttxY=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v8ea8u$1oqd7$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5153

Op 31.jul.2024 om 23:27 schreef olcott:
> On 7/31/2024 3:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 18:32 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/31/2024 11:17 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 31 Jul 2024 10:02:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/31/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 31 Jul 2024 05:52:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:54 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 16:13:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 4:07 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:05:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 1:48 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 30.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 9:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 30.jul.2024 om 16:21 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 1:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-29 14:07:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I proved otherwise. When the abort code is commented out then it
>>>>>>>>>>> keeps repeating again and again, thus conclusively proving 
>>>>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>>>>> must be aborted or HHH never halts.
>>>>>>>>>> But the abort is not commented out in the running code!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I modified the original code by commenting out the abort and it 
>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>> endlessly repeat just like HHH correctly predicted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and that modification makes HHH not call itself
>>>>>>> Not at all. It makes HHH stop aborting DDD.
>>>>>>> So that HHH and DDD endlessly repeat.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Commenting out a section changes the program.
>>>>> This conclusively proving that this section was required.
>>>> When you put in the abort, it also appears in the simulated HHH.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet this is unreachable in the same way that in a single file
>>> foot race with everyone going the same speed and everyone
>>> 15 feet ahead of the next person that the first person must win.
>>
>> Yet that is no reason for the person in front to kill all other 
>> people, because otherwise they would not stop running.
>> The first person will stop at the finish, the second person will stop 
>> at the finish, the third .... etc.
>>
>> There is no reason to assume that there are persons that will keep 
>> running indefinitely.
>>
>>>
>>> The outermost HHH sees that it must abort one whole execution
>>> trace sooner than the next inner HHH.
>>
>> But it is wrong to assume that the simulated HHH would not have halted 
>> when not aborted. 
> 
> It has never been an assumption is has always been a
> tautology that has always been over your head. Joes
> may be catching up with the Linz proof.
> 
>> This is proved when HHH is simulated by a non-aborting simulator, such 
>> as HHH1. A correct simulation shows that the simulated HHH does not 
>> need to be aborted.
>>
> 
> When we remove the abort code it keeps repeating.

But then you also changed the input.
A better proof is the simulation of HHH by HHH1, which shows that no 
abort is needed to simulate HHH.

> When we don't remove the abort code it gets aborted.
> An average first year comp sci student can get this.
> 
We are discussion the input given to HHH of a HHH that aborts.
You are changing the subject to another input
A better idea would be to change
   if (Root)
to
   if (!Root)
in the code of HHH

that would come close to a simulator that does not abort which simulates 
a HHH that does abort. That one will show you that no abort is needed.