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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting
 Joes and thus Fred too
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 14:39:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <v9llh9$12l6c$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>
 <EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:39:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b70e3e79cdddcca7f32bbdda15810b8e";
	logging-data="1135820"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Qbp5w6pQ86ir2bVr0agKU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3uy6SGLmAhXK2Ewnbu5Mmu0tELU=
In-Reply-To: <EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5068

On 8/15/2024 1:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct.
> 

*Fred has the same incorrect views as joes*
*Here is where you agreed that Fred is wrong*
*when replying to joes*

On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
 >> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
 >>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH
 >>>  returns to its caller*>>
 >>> (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
 >
 > 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?
 > [It's what people have been discussing here endlessly
 > for the last few months! :) ]
 >
 > So your trace is impossible...
 >


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