Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: point by point --- in our head
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 07:53:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <v9ni3v$1dvef$7@dont-email.me>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <aa4bc24ac5642087e81796fffc31e5022bd8823e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h9ec$a0id$1@dont-email.me>
 <190847da05ab48555c036a799e768f555461eb43@i2pn2.org>
 <v9hbhm$abr9$1@dont-email.me>
 <28bda6bb7d9efdacadf3de76c85a4857d0f83cb3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9ibpq$f16v$4@dont-email.me>
 <be041261e6d47d07a3b29255dc408e6803d870ad@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jnm0$q0lv$1@dont-email.me>
 <54c2cf5516e1477512a9dc4df913c8747164c631@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jom1$q5o5$1@dont-email.me>
 <192e56d5bedc6f7e537857a2cf21af0d9a352edd@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jpms$qaaf$1@dont-email.me>
 <8f9bb44064cab68e97b57ace4988d14928448672@i2pn2.org>
 <v9jrmt$qio5$1@dont-email.me>
 <2ac05356328ae560088cb3887b3b64351fb7ac19@i2pn2.org>
 <v9lbmv$119bh$2@dont-email.me>
 <f5fb8734b03c46c7a70dceb81db2f2f2fc6fc424@i2pn2.org>
 <v9mdmn$19n30$4@dont-email.me>
 <7c735b221306e12d1b72e79b616f35ab5dd367c3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:53:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da";
	logging-data="1506767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194LhAI/9ogRCVzAZrBpGEx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vlT+mtrFdXGXHMlQ42ihDJK30cQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <7c735b221306e12d1b72e79b616f35ab5dd367c3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5285

On 8/16/2024 2:19 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:31:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/15/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/2024 6:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/14/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 11:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, must behave the rules of Computation Theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means DDD, to be a program, includes the code of HHH,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that HHH obeys the requirements of programs in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation theory, which means that it always produces the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> same answer to its caller for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, its "Behavior" is defined as what it would do when run,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if it never is,
>>>>>>>>>>>> No that is the big mistake of comp theory where it violates
>>>>>>>>>>>> its own rules.
>>>>>>>>>>> WHAT rule does it violate? And where do you get it from?
>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you don't care.
>>>>>>>>>> You are like a bot programmed in rebuttal mode.
>>>>>>>>> I guess you don't have an answer, AGAIN.
>>>>>>>> Go back and look at the last 500 times that I answer it.
>>>>>>> You make the claim, but can't show a reliable source for it.
>>>>>> I make a claim and prove that it is correct and you change the
>>>>>> subject and form a rebuttal of the changed subject.
>>>>> No, you make a claim and present a false argument, not a proof.
>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
>>> It is a simuolation of *ONLY* the first N instructions of DDD,
>> That is what I said.
>> It is also true that the correct simulation of N instructions is enough
>> for something like mathematical induction to correctly predict the
>> behavior of an unlimited simulation.
> What a shitshow.
> A simulation of a limited number of instructions, or one that is aborted,
> or incomplete, does not show the same behaviour, by virtue of all the
> following instructions that were not simulated. Nobody was disputing
> the simulation of the instructions themselves; rather which instructions
> were or were not simulated.
> 

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
   OutputString("I never make it here!\n");
}

In other words you can't understand the above example.

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