Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 23:23:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 147
Message-ID: <v8s8gu$1capf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$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>
 <v8s1im$1b6r5$1@dont-email.me>
 <5VKdndWBS-oqCSz7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v8s4rc$1bo1b$1@dont-email.me>
 <d83da88bed605deb7fa9d11f19f3fe6c2bfb2eb0@i2pn2.org>
 <v8s71v$1c2mc$1@dont-email.me>
 <9959d3a939d49ec30579ddaf2a628ca89821f29f@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 06:23:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="198d92f6295c39b86c65eb128f10a699";
	logging-data="1452847"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uSqzKeEtFGDkQJfXGyfie"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+tOK+WswdJLdbDx4W7rwQDMXWec=
In-Reply-To: <9959d3a939d49ec30579ddaf2a628ca89821f29f@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7938

On 8/5/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/5/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/5/2024 10:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/5/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/5/2024 10:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 06/08/2024 03:25, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't recall doing that.  Please provide a reference for this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 8/2/2024 8:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>  > It's easy enough to say "PO has his own criterion for
>>>>  > halting, which is materially different from the HP condition,
>>>>  > and so we all agree PO is correct by his own criterion...
>>>>
>>>>> (Of course, everything depends on what you take Sipser's quote to 
>>>>> be saying.  I choose to interpret it as I'm pretty confident that 
>>>>> Sipser intended, under which the first half is mpst certainly NOT 
>>>>> met!)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <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>
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> It is certainly the case that DDD correctly simulated by any
>>>> HHH cannot possibly stop running unless aborted.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how any expert in the C language can deny that
>>>> with a straight face. Four have affirmed it. Two of these
>>>> four have masters degrees in computer science.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that this only works with the correct definition of 
>>> "Correctly Simulated" but not YOUR definition of Correctly Simulated.
>>>
>>
>> I say correctly emulated according to the semantics of the x86
>> language yet no one besides me understand that.
>>
>>
> 
> Which means you are not allowed to abort it,

It never meant that and you know it

     *until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never*
     *stop running unless aborted*

<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>



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