Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v9iak3$f16v$2@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:14:42 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Message-ID: <v9iak3$f16v$2@dont-email.me> References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me> <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org> <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me> <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@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 15:14:43 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0b9b77ee625b8578b747fee4cc5a1452"; logging-data="492767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18W9LHYCDaYClXyZQyQM0Ff" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q0omHldvIfL2eCrxx8tt+UmtHxY= In-Reply-To: <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 2858 On 8/14/2024 2:43 AM, joes wrote: > Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct. >>> Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N >>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD, >> That is what I said dufuss. > You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation > as correct. > When one instruction of DDD is correctly emulated then one instruction was correctly emulated. >>>> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient to >>>> correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller, >> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller* > how *HHH* returns > Changing the question is the strawman error or reasoning. >> (the first one doesn't even have a caller) >> Use the above machine language instructions to show this. > HHH simulates DDD enter the matrix > DDD calls HHH(DDD) Fred: could be eliminated > HHH simulates DDD second level > DDD calls HHH(DDD) recursion detected > HHH aborts, returns outside interference > DDD halts voila > HHH halts > That is the strawman error of reasoning. DDD correctly emulated by HHH never reaches its own "return" instruction. Show how it does or admit that I am correct. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer