Path: ...!2.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 here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by
 HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 08:19:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <v8vs96$32fso$8@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kp6s$3c5h2$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8ld1f$3f6vr$5@dont-email.me> <v8ldl0$3ennf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lfb9$3g2jl$1@dont-email.me> <v8lgsr$3gadt$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8lhrr$3gkbk$1@dont-email.me> <v8n6un$3tv08$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8nums$1n09$6@dont-email.me>
 <a7d98f536ed0dfcab52215e73ff85556026f3f0a@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oj55$6kik$4@dont-email.me> <v8vale$29sva$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 15:19:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6826d85dca534e829aa60949a8b0d61";
	logging-data="3227544"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18cbX7DFtvYgyy1A2ugEFUb"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NnGoYo0OUrtAVEF6TavvHuSF5z0=
In-Reply-To: <v8vale$29sva$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3305

On 8/7/2024 3:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 04.aug.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/4/2024 1:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/4/24 9:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 17:20 schreef olcott:>>
>>>>>> When you try to show how DDD simulated by HHH does
>>>>>> reach its "return" instruction you must necessarily
>>>>>> must fail unless you cheat by disagreeing with the
>>>>>> semantics of C. That you fail to have a sufficient
>>>>>> understanding of the semantics of C is less than no
>>>>>> rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunately that is not what I try, because I understand that HHH 
>>>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> In other words when HHH simulates itself simulating DDD it
>>>> is supposed to do something other than simulating itself
>>>> simulating DDD ???  Do you expect it to make a cup of coffee?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, but to be correct it need to complete that to the end.
>>>
>>
>> Saying this and knowing there is no end cannot possibly
>> be construed as anything but intentional deception.
>>
> And what is saying that there is no end for a program that aborts and 

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
   return;
}

Unless we divide the behavior of the tester from the test
subject Infinite_Recursion() would be determined to halt.

Instead we define the "return" as the never reached halt
state of Infinite_Recursion().

> halts after two cycles? Are you dreaming again of the non-aborting HHH 
> that does not halt? Dreams are no substitute for facts.


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