Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD
 emulated by HHH --- Deception
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 07:06:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <vbs150$3im2p$8@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <87le0jzc8f.fsf_-_@bsb.me.uk>
 <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
 <eca21d905b57bb0b98172c573890b5c8cda91da8@i2pn2.org>
 <vakisq$302rl$3@dont-email.me> <vamjse$3d6eb$1@dont-email.me>
 <van2ni$3f6c0$1@dont-email.me> <vap9r5$3t411$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapv4l$3vumk$4@dont-email.me> <vashj9$grso$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav3iq$10jsm$4@dont-email.me> <vavc3b$11uqn$2@dont-email.me>
 <vavcf8$129qh$1@dont-email.me> <vavdv4$11uqn$6@dont-email.me>
 <vavfjq$12m8t$3@dont-email.me> <vb1gqf$1f566$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4fd0$2s0uc$2@dont-email.me>
 <b393150191c6d78fc3033efb7c2fb993914ab53e@i2pn2.org>
 <vb9kao$3r9la$1@dont-email.me> <vbbvoc$9s9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbccr8$bdtb$5@dont-email.me> <vbeifo$om7b$5@dont-email.me>
 <vbep6r$punj$3@dont-email.me> <vbh9c8$1aru4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhm9k$1c7u5$13@dont-email.me> <vbjqhu$1sj3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbkai8$1u1js$6@dont-email.me> <vbkd8b$1v535$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbndvu$2g6vo$5@dont-email.me> <vbpcdr$2uib0$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:06:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fbca11ebde057c24ab486512c233e96";
	logging-data="3758169"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Lxf0EYa1xX93VJbaEj2Iq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kx6SN+X5v5j10HS9ecboZVPZj+E=
In-Reply-To: <vbpcdr$2uib0$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6930

On 9/10/2024 7:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 09.sep.2024 om 20:15 schreef olcott:
>> On 9/8/2024 9:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-08 13:58:32 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 9/8/2024 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-09-07 14:00:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/7/2024 5:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 06.sep.2024 om 13:31 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 05.sep.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HHH MUST ABORT AFTER SOME FIXED NUMBER OF RECURSIVE EMULATIONS
>>>>>>>>>> AND THE OUTERMOST HHH ALWAYS SEE ONE MORE THAN THE NEXT INNER 
>>>>>>>>>> ONE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the outer one, when aborting after two cycles , misses the 
>>>>>>>>> behaviour of the inner one in the next cycle, where the inner 
>>>>>>>>> one would see the 'special condition', abort, return to DDD, 
>>>>>>>>> which would halt as well.
>>>>>>>>> That HHH misses the last part of the behaviour of the program, 
>>>>>>>>> does not change the fact that this is the behaviour that was 
>>>>>>>>> coded in the program
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we have an infinite chain of people each waiting for
>>>>>>>>>> the next one down the line to do something then that thing
>>>>>>>>>> is never done.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The infinite chain exists only in your dream. In fact there are 
>>>>>>>>> only two recursions, so never more that a chain of three HHH in 
>>>>>>>>> the simulation.
>>>>>>>>> HHH is incorrect in assuming the there is an infinite chain, 
>>>>>>>>> but this incorrect assumption makes that it aborts and halts. 
>>>>>>>>> This applies both to the simulating and the simulated HHH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The way it is encoded now there are only two recursions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we encode it as you suggest the outermost directly
>>>>>>>> executed HHH would wait for the first emulated HHH which
>>>>>>>> would wait for the second which would wait for third
>>>>>>>> on and on...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is olcott's problem with English?
>>>>>>> If one way is incorrect, he thinks that it suggests that another 
>>>>>>> way must be correct.
>>>>>>> I never suggested to change HHH, because there is *no* correct 
>>>>>>> way to do it. Every HHH that simulates itself is incorrect. No 
>>>>>>> matter what clever code it includes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You must be a brain dead moron.
>>>>>> As long as HHH emulates the sequence of instructions
>>>>>> it was provided then HHH is correct even if it catches
>>>>>> your computer on fire.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is right. The error only occurs when HHH no longer emulates the
>>>>> sequence of instructions it was provided.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>
>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>
>>>> The above refers to determining that *its input D*
>>>> "specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations"
>>>> When people change this to a *non-input D* they are
>>>> trying to get away with deception.
>>>
>>> We know except the only "people" that do so is you.
>>>
>>
>> _DDD()
>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>> [00002183] c3         ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>
>> Try to show all of the details of how DDD emulated
>> by HHH ever reaches machine address  00002183
>>
>> Sequences of machine addressed when DDD is emulated by HHH
>> 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a
>> which calls an emulated HHH(DDD).
>>
>> What are the next instructions of DDD emulated by the emulated HHH ?
>>
> The instructions at 0000217f, 00002182, 00002183 and the program halt 
> are, among others, the ones that HHH fails to simulate, where a correct 
> simulation (such as by HHH1 and the unmodified world class simulator) 
> shows that they are reachable.
> But HHH fails to reach them. HHH cannot possibly simulate itself 
> correctly up to the end.
> 

You are too stupid to understand unreachable code.

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
   OutString("Can't possibly get here!");
}


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