Path: ...!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: Overview of proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 17:11:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <v9glm0$319k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9abfu$2nabt$1@dont-email.me>
 <86c21e8a63450bf8b0c32f4f17ba0b503a914fe0@i2pn2.org>
 <v9d01i$39tbd$2@dont-email.me>
 <2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org>
 <v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me>
 <e614d6b981fd5fa6eefc84894a14448d4663e3c7@i2pn2.org>
 <v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me>
 <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me>
 <b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me>
 <d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
 <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org>
 <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
 <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
 <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me>
 <d2309af812f88b94b2a64a422bf8240b54a0caae@i2pn2.org>
 <v9gghg$2cth$1@dont-email.me>
 <c6ecb410c80e2bd5516dfd0c4b239ff68393ebb7@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:11:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0b9b77ee625b8578b747fee4cc5a1452";
	logging-data="99636"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1941VHxPirLlRKBVu0decFE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8cVyt5XprsMfFYm93JcKdFnDlEo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <c6ecb410c80e2bd5516dfd0c4b239ff68393ebb7@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3324

On 8/13/2024 4:34 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 15:43:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 8/13/2024 3:38 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:30:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD
>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
>>>> state.
>>> If let run, the HHH called by DDD will abort and return.
>>>
>>>> H has never ever been required to do an unlimited emulation of a
>>>> non-halting input. H has only ever been required to correctly predict
>>>> what the behavior of a unlimited emulation would be.
>>> Which it doesn't fulfill.
> Can you actually reply to what I said?
> 
>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the semantics
>> of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
> It's not about the individual steps, but their number. An incomplete or
> aborted simulation is necessarily incorrect.
> 

*We can't move on to the next point until after you agree*
A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
(1) Yes you agree
(2) No you want to be stuck in an infinite loop until you agree


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