Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict
 correctly
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 06:20:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <v8fr16$24rl1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v887np$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>
 <bcbbe8bf6a4d4ce9e78810c4868bb4c9fa61fc28@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 13:20:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3121e7e48560b53e45601f59b50fa691";
	logging-data="2256545"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FJUggSK1sFeZDF375nUyL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uuzDq+AyOXumySo3pq3wVBxJ824=
In-Reply-To: <bcbbe8bf6a4d4ce9e78810c4868bb4c9fa61fc28@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5153

On 8/1/2024 2:18 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 31 Jul 2024 16:27:58 -0500 schrieb 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.
> They will run unto the finish.
> 
>>>> 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.
> If one of them aborts, all of them do.
> 

If the outer one waits for the next inner one then they all
wait for their own next inner one and none of them ever abort.

>>> 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. When we don't remove
>> the abort code it gets aborted.
> Also, the simulated HHH aborts and the simulating HHH doesn't trigger.
> 

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