Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 13:48:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <v933u7$5r7u$4@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> <v933m4$5kjd$1@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 20:48:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c97dfd2b0fa781dfb9291aeaceb4463";
	logging-data="191742"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kq8wbbslr7tUyuYBRmnhX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zM940X2N21Ax6IFufKqs6tHOkXQ=
In-Reply-To: <v933m4$5kjd$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4159

On 8/8/2024 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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. 

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

The return instruction in both cases is unreachable code.
DDD correctly emulated by HHH and Infinite_Recursion
correctly emulated by HHH cannot reach the "return"
instruction.

If you don't know the first thing about programming you
might not notice this.

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