Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 09:53:08 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <v91q0k$3q281$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> <v8t1qn$1ilg6$1@dont-email.me> <v8v6p3$29ihb$1@dont-email.me> <v8vrv5$32fso$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 08:53:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7ca8cc5ca66551310006596dadbb32e6";
	logging-data="4000001"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ubP4bumJJ68w09w/ATN4j"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8rIpwG+Lyzc7J9M/O9MGGibvS3o=
Bytes: 4684

On 2024-08-07 13:14:13 +0000, olcott said:

> On 8/7/2024 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-06 11:35:51 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> You were and still are lying. There was no word (such as "assume") in
>> your calim about me, so it was not a hypothesis but a lie.
>> 
> 
> Several of your answers seemed to show that you did not
> know C very well. Fred and Joes did not seem to know
> programming very well.

According to our defamation laws "seemed" is not sufficinet to ensure
that you aren't jailed.

-- 
Mikko