Path: ...!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: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 10:28:31 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <v91s2v$3ql4c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v8vsql$32fso$11@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 09:28:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7ca8cc5ca66551310006596dadbb32e6";
	logging-data="4019340"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/QR45OPr9A3qTpAeszRrsr"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:J+ZIw584MtgGbrGaPmxaqryHsu8=
Bytes: 5938

On 2024-08-07 13:28:53 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

A completed task is one that has already reached its halt state.

-- 
Mikko