| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.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: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own return instruction final state?
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 11:16:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kou4$3b2ta$1@dont-email.me>
<v8lcir$3f6vr$4@dont-email.me> <v8ldcs$3fcgg$2@dont-email.me>
<v8lem0$3ftpo$2@dont-email.me>
<735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org>
<v8lkdb$3h16a$1@dont-email.me>
<5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 18:16:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6697133516c971b81fd53169bb6a94ea";
logging-data="3711682"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7h3gUalQH+aXEvsry8b9D"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Gichj4xnR8LOAFBMzMJOTrgzqDI=
In-Reply-To: <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3571
On 8/3/2024 11:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/3/24 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/3/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/3/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/2024 9:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 15:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 02.aug.2024 om 22:57 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> 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;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which proves that the simulation is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When are you going to understand that you are not allowed
>>>>>> to disagree with the semantics of the x86 language?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not disagree.
>>>>> When are you going to understand that it is a deviation of the
>>>>> semantics of the x86 language to skip instructions of a halting
>>>>> program,
>>>>
>>>> HHH(DDD) simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) to repeat the process.
>>>>
>>>> If it does this an infinite number of times the simulated DDD
>>>> never reaches its own return instruction.
>>>>
>>>> If it does this a googolplex number of times the simulated DDD
>>>> never reaches its own return instruction.
>>>
>>> Nope, the PARTIAL SIMULATION of DDD never reaches the return
>>> instruction.
>>>
>>
>> For N = 0; while N <= googolplex; N++
>> N instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[N] never
>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>
>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never
>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>
>> Thus any HHH that takes a wild guess that DDD emulated
>> by itself never halts is always correct.
>>
>
> The SIMULATION of DDD never reaches the return instruction.
>
Great! Finally.
When we understand that the return instruction is halt state
of DDD then DDD correctly simulated by HHH never halts.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer