Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vhfgks$18unc$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 07:49:16 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 61 Message-ID: <vhfgks$18unc$1@dont-email.me> References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me> <286747edde7812d05b1bdf4f59af1cffdd44e95a@i2pn2.org> <vhdktc$qirt$1@dont-email.me> <e3fe85b499b799f440d722c0433bab69edf2e289@i2pn2.org> <vhe661$tuln$1@dont-email.me> <cbd95d14a4b405724f145aa6144898bdfd3975ce@i2pn2.org> <vhe95v$ue1m$1@dont-email.me> <779e20cb36e226d2d3515fb62c5c8fa7b8e22d05@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:49:16 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9eeddbf0661af45b9b764b78cd434096"; logging-data="1342188"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tlbISl4qBYtnLBMcVPFg4" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZbyeW6MlO6TD2k/bY5eR0sWEvD0= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241118-6, 11/18/2024), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <779e20cb36e226d2d3515fb62c5c8fa7b8e22d05@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 3955 On 11/18/2024 3:19 AM, joes wrote: > Am Sun, 17 Nov 2024 20:35:43 -0600 schrieb olcott: >> On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 11/17/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 11/17/24 3:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/17/2024 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> I referred to every element of an infinite set of encodings of HHH. > > Do you mean they are parameterised by the number of steps they simulate? > No I do not mean that. Whether or not DDD emulated by HHH ever reaches its own "return" instruction final halt state has nothing to do with any of the internal working of HHH as long as each HHH emulates N steps of its input according to the semantics of the x86 language. >>>>>> When each of them correctly emulates N instructions of its input >>>>>> then N instructions have been correctly emulated. It is despicably >>>>>> dishonest of you to say that when N instructions have been correctly >>>>>> emulated that no instructions have been correctly emulating. > > Then not all instructions have been simulated correctly. It is ridiculously stupid to require a non-halting input to be emulated completely because of the requirement that HHH itself must halt. All emulating termination analyzers are required to correctly PREDICT whether or not an unlimited emulation of their input would cause their own non-termination. When someone (that knows better) insists that this emulation must be complete they merely make a complete jackass of themselves. > >>>>> I never said that N instructions correctly emulated is no >>>>> instructions correctly emulated, just that it isn't a correct >>>>> emulation that provides the answer for the semantic property of >>>>> halting, which requires emulating to the final state or an unbounded >>>>> number of steps. >>> No, but it is the fact that it CAN be emulated for an unbounded number >>> of steps that makes it non-halting. >> >> It cannot be emulated for an unbounded number of steps. > > ??? > You can continue to simulate an infinite loop forever. > The violates the design requirement that an emulating termination analyzer must itself halt. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer