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: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 19:34:16 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <vb4sup$2u7sn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vajdta$2qe9s$1@dont-email.me> <vak3a0$2teq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vakhnf$302rl$2@dont-email.me> <vamk7l$3d7ki$1@dont-email.me>
 <van3v7$3f6c0$5@dont-email.me> <vap7b1$3sobs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapvbc$3vumk$5@dont-email.me>
 <e10aee5b3ede543da42ba76ac4d7f0a0fe762695@i2pn2.org>
 <vasmn8$hmpd$1@dont-email.me> <vaumg9$ut9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav0r9$10jsm$1@dont-email.me> <vavb4a$11uqn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vavca1$1283f$1@dont-email.me>
 <98cab2236f5cf14547da155651a24f9561e2b076@i2pn2.org>
 <vavqot$14dkv$1@dont-email.me> <vb1ikk$1f566$5@dont-email.me>
 <vb4dp1$2r7ok$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2024 19:34:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="692047d1739acfbfb1f7dce4a5e931bd";
	logging-data="3088279"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DtKCboB2m5wLCRzr5Yqg4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IdOSsq7ZSZVdgBDpr6v5szfX/CI=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vb4dp1$2r7ok$7@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5083

Op 02.sep.2024 om 15:15 schreef olcott:
> On 9/1/2024 6:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 21:26 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/31/2024 1:49 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 31 Aug 2024 10:19:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 8/31/2024 9:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 14:03 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/31/2024 4:07 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 30.aug.2024 om 16:58 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/30/2024 9:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:07:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly predicts what the behavior of DDD would be if this
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH never aborted its emulation of DDD.
>>>>>>>>>> Problem is, DDD is then not calling itself, but the non-input 
>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>> not-aborting HHH.
>>>>>>>>> *This is before any aborting occurs*
>>>>>>>> Here is your problem. The code of the program and its meaning
>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language, does not suddenly
>>>>>>>> change when the aborting occurs.
>>>> ^ important
>>>>>>> You cannot possibly say one damn thing about the behavior of DDD 
>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>> you first understand that a world class x86 emulator that HHH calls
>>>>>>> does enable HHH to correctly emulate itself emulating DDD and the
>>>>>>> following execution trace proves this.
>>>>>> And when this unmodified world class x86 simulator was given olcott's
>>>>>> DDD based on the aborting HHH as input, it showed that this has 
>>>>>> halting
>>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>> THIS IS A VERIFIED FACT! Even olcott has verified it.
>>>>>> This correct simulation by the unmodified world class simulator tells
>>>>>> us that the program has a halting behaviour.
>>>>>> Your *modification* of the simulator stops the simulation before 
>>>>>> it can
>>>>>> see the halting behaviour and decides that the input is non-halting.
>>>>>> We know which one is correct: the unmodified world class 
>>>>>> simulator, not
>>>>>> the *modified* one, which aborts one cycle too soon..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Still dreaming of the HHH that does an infinite recursion?
>>>>> Before we can proceed to the next step you must first agree that the
>>>>> second emulation of DDD by the emulated HHH is proven to be correct on
>>>>> the basis that it does emulate the first four instructions of DDD.
>>>> The fourth instruction (the call) encompasses quite a few further
>>>> instructions, which must all(!) be simulated until it returns. Only
>>>> then is it finished.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The x86utm operating system correctly emulates
>>> 100 million instructions of DDD emulated by HHH
>>> with abort turned off.
>>>
>>> If they were shown it would take 1.5 million pages.
>>> Because of this only the emulated DDD instructions
>>> are shown.
>> Again olcott tries to get a ways with a change of subject. We were 
>> talking about a HHH that aborts and halts, 
> 
> An HHH that does not abort thus never halts thus
> conclusively proving that HHH must abort or never halts.

Olcott is dreaming again of the HHH that does not abort and, indeed, 
does not halt.
Somehow, olcott thinks that adding the abort code does not change the 
program.
It seems too difficult for olcott to understand that when the abort code 
is added, the HHH will after a few recursions see the 'special 
condition', abort and halt..
This is most clearly seen in:

        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }

where HHH halts (!), but it decides that it does not (!) halt.