Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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 and thus Fred too
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:57:51 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <v9mt9h$1bdeu$3@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>
 <v9llh9$12l6c$2@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 08:57:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e1077c3f244117f83fc73d481c099ebe";
	logging-data="1422814"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+nRN8dKkyqukO3ntld7jV7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mFhuTvTyxX8QQhYqQQ3j8u9VhH8=
In-Reply-To: <v9llh9$12l6c$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 5981

Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 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.
>>
> 
> *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...
>  >
> 
> 

It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very 
short of memory.)
I never said such a thing.
I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH 
had only one cycle to go. I never said that the simulated HHH reached it 
abort and halted.
In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach the 
abort and halt of the simulated HHH proves that the simulation is 
incomplete and incorrect, because a complete simulation (such as by 
HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt.

It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, or 
your memory is indeed very short.
Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from rebuttal 
mode, instead of ignoring it immediately.