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 knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
 reach its own return instruction final state?
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 08:28:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <v8vsql$32fso$11@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@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$4@dont-email.me> <v8pv8a$if6p$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbVw1JztSi37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v8v730$29l8n$1@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 15:28:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6826d85dca534e829aa60949a8b0d61";
	logging-data="3227544"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+84s6ePMF24b5qbSj6OA7P"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tPauvLdidl9H3Emgf5rJL1j08LY=
In-Reply-To: <v8v730$29l8n$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6378

On 8/7/2024 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-08-05 13:45:19 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 8/5/2024 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> That is incorrect. A completed task is a task where
>> there are no more steps to be accomplished.
> 
> That you agree does not mean that I was wrong (though it certainly
> means that I should check one more time, and I did, and found some
> typos but no substantial error).
> 

On 8/2/2024 11:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
 > ...In some formulations, there are specific states
 >    defined as "halting states" and the machine only
 >    halts if either the start state is a halt state...

 > ...these and many other definitions all have
 >    equivalent computing prowess...

A completed task is one that reaches its halt state.

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

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}

Neither Infinite_Recursion nor DDD simulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the x86 language can
possibly reach their own halt state of "return" thus
can never be completed tasks.

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