Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never
 reaches its halt state
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 20:44:18 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <v933m4$5kjd$1@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> <v8vah7$29sva$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8vr7e$32fso$2@dont-email.me> <v91vc4$3qp1r$2@dont-email.me>
 <v92ge1$p1$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 20:44:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d136fca07a025f3f7da6e216ce90d2bd";
	logging-data="184941"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FAw1DbsU+tgTL2N/nSGu8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OKgh12M2WvicYBji7i1rNjZwKGQ=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v92ge1$p1$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4979

Op 08.aug.2024 om 15:15 schreef olcott:
> On 8/8/2024 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 07.aug.2024 om 15:01 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/7/2024 3:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 04.aug.2024 om 15:11 schreef olcott:
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is English too difficult for you. I said HHH cannot do it correctly.
>>>
>>> *According to an incorrect criteria of correct*
>>> You keep trying to get away with disagreeing with
>>> the semantics of the x86 language. *That is not allowed*
>>>
>> Again accusations without evidence.
>> We proved that HHH deviated from the semantics of the x86 language by 
>> skipping the last few instructions of a halting program.
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
> *emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
> none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
> its "return" instruction halt state.
> 
> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this*

Indeed. And this correctly proves that the simulation failed, not 
because of an instruction simulated incorrectly, but because 
instructions are skipped. In particular the instructions of the last 
cycle of the simulation, after which HHH would return and DDD would 
return are skipped.
But HHH is programmed to abort one cycle before the end of the program.
Your claims correctly prove that this is true.
HHH cannot possibly simulate *itself* correctly up to the end.

*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
> 
> There is no need to show any execution trace at the x86 level
> every expert in the C language sees that the emulated DDD
> cannot possibly reaches its "return" instruction halt state.

Indeed. This correctly proves that the simulation is incomplete and 
incorrect.
HHH cannot possibly simulate *itself* correctly up to the end.

*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*

> 
> Every rebuttal that anyone can possibly make is necessarily
> erroneous because the first paragraph is a tautology.


Indeed. And this correctly proves that the simulation is incomplete and, 
therefore, incorrect.
HHH cannot possibly simulate *itself* correctly up to the end.

*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*