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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting
 Joes
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:24:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <v9md9p$19n30$1@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>
 <8b56eba0ec44b78d23a1029236e2c22734d48ae9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 04:24:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da";
	logging-data="1367136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uicKBWqrD3F70FevsLyNT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:z/vI2ifYVPQa6rVuRNjBulhsPgY=
In-Reply-To: <8b56eba0ec44b78d23a1029236e2c22734d48ae9@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3194

On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/15/24 8:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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?

That is the part that Joes and Fred do not understand.

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