Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!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: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 09:20:37 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <v8lebl$3ftpo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8hf52$2jl7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8kodp$3bu46$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lces$3f6vr$3@dont-email.me> <v8ld7u$3fcgg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 16:20:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6697133516c971b81fd53169bb6a94ea";
	logging-data="3667768"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194tvFzBO7rhqXr+LJDhw7+"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ShmoPem2P9Kx6zlP7J7VHqadHmY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8ld7u$3fcgg$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3100

On 8/3/2024 9:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 03.aug.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/3/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-02 02:09:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> *This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>
>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>
>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
>>>> language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
>>>> emulates itself emulating DDD
>>>>
>>>> *UNTIL*
>>>>
>>>> HHH correctly determines that never aborting this
>>>> emulation would cause DDD and HHH to endlessly repeat.
>>>
>>> The determination is not correct. DDD is a halting computation, as
>>> correctely determined by HHH1 or simly calling it from main. It is
>>> not possible to correctly determine that ha haling computation is
>>> non-halting, as is self-evdent from the meaning of the words.
>>>
>>
>> [Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
>>   by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?]
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
> 
> When it cannot possibly reach its own return instruction, 

You are not allowed to disagree with the semantics of C
or the semantics of the x86 language. As long as the
execution trace is consistent with these then it is defined
to be correct.

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