Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!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: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 16:54:30 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <v8lgb8$3gadt$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>
 <v8lebl$3ftpo$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 16:54:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c008484573dc3f0f1f8d22b16f79247c";
	logging-data="3680701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19kUoRRYU/+4WA/FVTWMqtW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CYCh1wPJ6JhmTMvB/yms2A20f7s=
In-Reply-To: <v8lebl$3ftpo$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3828

Op 03.aug.2024 om 16:20 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 

Talking nonsense does not hide you problem. I don't disagree with that 
semantics.
It is HHH that deviates from the semantics of the x86 language by 
skipping the last few instructions of a halting program, changing its 
behaviour in this way.
Skipping instructions of a halting program makes the simulation incorrect.
You may dream of a HHH that does not abort and does not halt, but it 
does not change the fact that a HHH that *does* abort and halt, when 
correctly simulated, *does* abort and halt.
When HHH aborts itself, the simulated HHH (that aborts and halts) is 
only one cycle for its abort and return.
But HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
Dreams are no substitute for fact, not for logic.