Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
 reach its own return instruction final state?
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 12:58:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <v8lr4u$3iali$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>
 <v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
 <cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me>
 <7295d80cad171cd65cc39845362189aa88adca4f@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 19:58:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6697133516c971b81fd53169bb6a94ea";
	logging-data="3746482"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/L3tDknCRiemGFBHeqabS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Iyl+fR/+677AXA723PnL0vIj0gQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <7295d80cad171cd65cc39845362189aa88adca4f@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4752

On 8/3/2024 12:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/3/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/3/2024 11:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/3/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> No, you are just proving you are incapable of learning.
>>>
>>> The PARTIAL simulation of DDD done by HHH doesn't reach the return 
>>> instruction.
>>>
>>
>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never
>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>
>> So you are saying that the infinite one does?
>>
> 
> I said for the HHH's that do a partial simulation it does.
> 

You said: "doesn't" you did not say: "does"
You can't even accurately quote your own self?

Every DDD correctly emulated by any HHH for a finite or
infinite number of steps never reaches its own "return"
halt state.

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