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: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 06:35:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <v8t1qn$1ilg6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8hf52$2jl7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8kodp$3bu46$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lces$3f6vr$3@dont-email.me> <v8n9qm$3ulus$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8nseg$1n09$3@dont-email.me> <v8pust$icn0$1@dont-email.me>
 <jfWdnR_xHenKVC37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v8slku$1gfnf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 13:35:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="198d92f6295c39b86c65eb128f10a699";
	logging-data="1660422"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18F628hH/zd13cDr3LiPATz"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0LzFXyltfQzammM2s5KXpQkrYnk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8slku$1gfnf$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4225

On 8/6/2024 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-08-05 12:45:11 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 8/5/2024 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-04 12:33:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 8/4/2024 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-08-03 13:48:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-08-02 02:09:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination 
>>>>>>>> analyzers*
>>>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
>>>>>>>> language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
>>>>>>>> emulates itself emulating DDD
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *UNTIL*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH correctly determines that never aborting this
>>>>>>>> emulation would cause DDD and HHH to endlessly repeat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The determination is not correct. DDD is a halting computation, as
>>>>>>> correctely determined by HHH1 or simly calling it from main. It is
>>>>>>> not possible to correctly determine that ha haling computation is
>>>>>>> non-halting, as is self-evdent from the meaning of the words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
>>>>>>   by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?]
>>>>>
>>>>> Who here is too stupid to know that whether DDD can reach its
>>>>> own return instruction depends on code not shown below?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> It is stipulated that HHH is an x86 emulator the emulates
>>>> N instructions of DDD where N is 0 to infinity.
>>>
>>> That is not stipulated above. Anyway, that stipulation would not
>>> alter the correctness of my answer.
>>>
>>
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> In other words you do not know C well enough to comprehend
>> that DDD correctly simulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach
>> its own "return" instruction halt state.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 

I am hypothesizing. If you do know C well enough to agree then
simply agree. What I said is a tautology thus disagreement <is> error.

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