Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 05:53:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <vf033d$3rc0m$3@dont-email.me>
References: <ves6p1$2uoln$1@dont-email.me> <vesemu$2v7sh$1@dont-email.me>
 <a9fb95eb0ed914d0d9775448c005111eb43f2c5b@i2pn2.org>
 <veslpf$34ogr$1@dont-email.me>
 <647fe917c6bc0cfc78083ccf927fe280acdf2f9d@i2pn2.org>
 <vetq7u$3b8r2$1@dont-email.me>
 <d8006439ae02f55ba148e6be1f8c4787905a999f@i2pn2.org>
 <veu30q$3cqfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <0280e32ff3acd1fff59f9637f14bf309150878b4@i2pn2.org>
 <veu4rl$3ct1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <00bf3eb3a01c08467b34e8d7e99ca3fa193aa531@i2pn2.org>
 <veuc3j$3e9cv$1@dont-email.me> <veue7n$1a01$1@news.muc.de>
 <veufr6$3f30f$1@dont-email.me>
 <31fed9bd45277332bcabc040d4b21de642356f63@i2pn2.org>
 <veukur$3ftj1$1@dont-email.me>
 <fa44d9c8febaa7919fbb19dcea581908274b5f32@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:53:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2f4596ff028e636d7320aa11ac5f85c";
	logging-data="4042774"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++G1/fEkzf6CtHDmCqJHIc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IwgFk2gZcdi18fRj1ulqe4Q3hlE=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241019-2, 10/19/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <fa44d9c8febaa7919fbb19dcea581908274b5f32@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4151

On 10/19/2024 2:22 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:46:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 10/18/2024 4:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 15:18:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 10/18/2024 2:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/18/2024 2:10 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The existence of the check has an effect right from the start;
>>>>>>> besides, it is true the first time it is executed.
>>>>>> So maybe you have ADD too. You can't seem to pay attention when
>>>>>> things are explained to you many different times several different
>>>>>> ways.
>>>>> What you call "explaining" is in actual fact the assertion of
>>>>> falsehoods.  This is usually called lying.
>>>>> The variable Root does indeed affect your program.
>>>> *I never say that it didn't*
>>> You said nothing at all. Productive communication would have included
>>> an agreement and clarification.
>>>
>>>> The "root" variable has NO EFFECT WHAT-SO-EVER on the correctness or
>>>> completeness of HHH emulating itself emulating DDD until this DDD
>>>> calls HHH(DDD).
>>> DDD does nothing else but call HHH, and Root is part of HHH, so is
>>> simulated the first time around.
>> It is possible that I am not communicating this clearly enough
>> The root variable cannot possibly have have any effect what-so-ever on
>> the correctness of HHH emulating DDD or HHH emulating itself emulating
>> DDD until the root variable tests true.

> It has the effect of not aborting the simulation.

It has this effect only after every competent software
engineer can independently verify that it is correct:

Emulating termination analyzer HHH emulates its input DDD
according to the semantics of the x86 language (including HHH
emulating itself emulating DDD) until HHH correctly determines
that its emulated DDD would never stop running unless aborted.

> Apart from that, Root is true in the root invocation of HHH (duh).
> 

The other place that root is true has no effect on the correctness
of the x86 emulation. Do I have to tell you this 175 times before
you notice that I said it once?

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