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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting
 Joes
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 20:22:58 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <v9lh24$11vnf$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
 <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me> <v9l7hf$vao1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 20:23:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6fe5c52353619c0eaa47b74070d55905";
	logging-data="1113839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8MboU/vu1ROj3p2C9Gl4/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fG24AFgcZKHlcSX6tQFdDNjMO+g=
In-Reply-To: <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3822

Op 15.aug.2024 om 18:30 schreef olcott:
> On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:
>>>>> On 14/08/2024 08:43, 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts 
>>>>> its
>>>>> simulation [line 5 above],
>>>>> then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
>>>>> earlier.  You know that, right?
>>>
>>>> Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical
>>>> reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort
>>>> the same.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
>>> wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
>>> waiting forever.
>> Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before the 
>> simulated HHH would abort and halt.
> 
> Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong.
> 
You don't understand Mike correctly and you are twisting his words. A 
call on authority does not prove anything.
The evidence that HHH was aborted one cycle before it would halt shows 
that it is true:
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.