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: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:51:23 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <v9mstc$1bdeu$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>
 <v9ll1f$12l6c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:51:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e1077c3f244117f83fc73d481c099ebe";
	logging-data="1422814"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/85ZIyxBRkBrKys/sK8g77"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GGANYZDZ+ns/Knzl8Nvhd6tSVBE=
In-Reply-To: <v9ll1f$12l6c$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4624

Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:30 schreef olcott:
> 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.
>>
>> And stop misquoting me.  You lack the intelligence to understand what 
>> other posters are saying, so I suggest you simply stop trying to quote 
>> them, just to be safe.
>>
>>
>> Mike.
>>
> 
> When you corrected Joes on this the same
> correction applies to Fred's same mistake.
> 

It is clear you do not understand what Mike said.
It happens with more quotes from you, that you twist the words to give 
them a meaning that was clearly not the intention of the writer.
But, if you think Mike is an authority, listen to him when he says: 
"Fred is correct".
Try to think about what I say, instead of ignoring it because your 
prejudice that you cannot be wrong.