Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <abc@def.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
 reach its own return instruction final state?
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 21:25:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <v8s1im$1b6r5$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> <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
 <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <dca317e236dd975a3f030ae92ea0aa343833f029@i2pn2.org>
 <v8rpgd$15pid$1@dont-email.me>
 <ad3a7354ca32b7b9adb23db743347f3f12aaec63@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 04:25:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="198d92f6295c39b86c65eb128f10a699";
	logging-data="1416037"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18dpptuXmRa5YQ9leUnz3od"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7giamZ95ke6iBnIa7XREZ2aPM2k=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ad3a7354ca32b7b9adb23db743347f3f12aaec63@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4753

On 8/5/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/5/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/5/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/5/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-08-04 18:59:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>  >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never
>>>>>>>>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the infinite one does?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are no 
>>>>>>>>> substitute for facts.
>>>>>>>>> The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is the right answer to the wrong question.
>>>>>>>> I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>> reaches its "return" instruction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of
>>>>>> emulation and not and direct execution.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you mean anything other than what the words mean you wihout
>>>>> a definition in the beginning of the same message then it is
>>>>> not reasonable to expect anyone to understand what you mean.
>>>>> Instead people may think that you mean what you say or that
>>>>> you don't know what you are saying.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you don't understand what the word "emulate" means look it up.
>>>>
>>>> DDD (above) cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction halt
>>>> state when its machine code is correctly emulated by HHH.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only because an HHH that does so never returns to anybody.
>>>
>>
>> Do you really not understand that recursive emulation <is>
>> isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>>
> 
> Not when the emulation is conditional.
> 

Infinite_Recursion() meets the exact same condition that DDD
emulated by HHH makes and you know this. Since you are so
persistently trying to get away contradicting the semantics
of the x86 language the time is coming where there is zero
doubt that this is an honest mistake.

Ben does correctly understand that the first half of the Sipser
approved criteria is met. Even Mike finally admitted this.

Those that disagree either are totally lacking in even basic
knowledge of C or are liars.

>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>> {
>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> Does infinite recursion ever reach its own "return"
>> instruction 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