Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 10:33:30 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <v8pv8a$if6p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@i2pn2.org> <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me> <7295d80cad171cd65cc39845362189aa88adca4f@i2pn2.org> <v8lr4u$3iali$1@dont-email.me> <c949dfc8c7354f19a3a3d31325ee9847be91f333@i2pn2.org> <v8lt59$3iali$2@dont-email.me> <74c4fe66234c5332f4ec6032bc55cc6c5f038aee@i2pn2.org> <v8lv3a$3j30t$1@dont-email.me> <9fb36dd006e570bf987f882a8310bc13e8fc04a7@i2pn2.org> <v8m331$3ju7r$1@dont-email.me> <3ecbe8eddd0f3644c7045e937ccaf6ddc1cdb3a9@i2pn2.org> <v8m5a5$3kbok$1@dont-email.me> <de8528a486cdc94aec9fc7dc3d0195fdce3b4fbe@i2pn2.org> <v8m93b$3l8jv$1@dont-email.me> <c50f1d87c5e386a7c388c982a4f7da8c5889e493@i2pn2.org> <v8ma68$3lgfl$1@dont-email.me> <03571f185bf16590c5e535908467086b1efaffef@i2pn2.org> <v8meta$3ma4t$1@dont-email.me> <b1e8c0c9b69cc026f777b37bbd49af5d2afddd21@i2pn2.org> <v8mqt0$3s736$1@dont-email.me> <1c483f9a972618a0db5c00e03b894c3fe6adc1fa@i2pn2.org> <v8nsho$1n09$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 09:33:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bbfb59f828059e193a33ed558dfca0d5";
	logging-data="605401"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GFKy2VaFyMyFJ6X3IAm5h"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mzTV2L5qqGTI9AUELYLOpldPI+Q=
Bytes: 4763

On 2024-08-04 12:35:04 +0000, olcott said:

> On 8/4/2024 6:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/3/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/24 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/3/2024 5:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/3/24 6:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 5:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The problem is that every one of those emulation is of a *DIFFERENT* 
>>>>>>>> input, so they don't prove anything together except that each one 
>>>>>>>> didn't go far enough.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When each HHH correctly emulates 0 to infinity steps of
>>>>>>> its corresponding DDD and none of them reach the "return"
>>>>>>> halt state of DDD then even the one that emulated infinite
>>>>>>> steps of DDD did not emulate enough steps?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Just says lying YOU.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You got any source for that other than yourself?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is self-evident and you know it. I do have four
>>>>> people (two with masters in CS) that attest to that.
>>>>> *It is as simple as I can possibly make it*
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe to your mind filled with false facts, but it isn't true.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wonder how you think that you are not swearing your
>>>>> allegiance to that father of lies?
>>>> 
>>>> Because, I know I speak the truth.
>>>> 
>>>> Why do you not think you are lying?
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anyone that truly understands infinite recursion knows
>>>>> that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>>> its own "return" final state.
>>>> 
>>>> Right, but for every other HHH, which the ones that answer are, it 
>>>> isn't a fact.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Surpisingly (to me) Jeff Barnett set the record straight
>>>>> on exactly what halting means.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No, there is one, and only one definition, it is a machine that reaches 
>>>> its final state.
>>>> 
>>>> Note, *a machine*, not a (partial) emulation of the machine
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> You already know that a complete emulation of a non-ending
>>> sequence is impossible and you already acknowledged that
>>> DDD emulated by HHH that never aborts is non-ending.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> WHy do you say it is impossible, it just takes forever,
> 
> A complete emulation is after all of the instructions have been
> emulated. That never happens with any infinite execution.

No, that is not what the words mean. A complete emulation is one that is
continued as long as it can be continued. THe emulation is completed when
all of its instructions are executed. A complete emulaton  that can be
continues forever is complete but never completed.

-- 
Mikko