Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone with sufficient knowledge of C knows that DD specifies
 non-terminating behavior to HHH
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 19:57:56 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <vptpj4$3st19$18@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <vp46l6$26r1n$1@dont-email.me> <vp5t55$2gt2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp6pmb$2opvi$1@dont-email.me> <vp8700$30tdq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp9ct8$3af6t$1@dont-email.me> <vpav34$3jct4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpc3u9$3skb7$1@dont-email.me> <vpcsvk$irt$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpev2e$fgop$1@dont-email.me> <vpfmpp$j7qb$6@dont-email.me>
 <vphbnb$10gus$1@dont-email.me> <vpivp4$1fvqe$6@dont-email.me>
 <vpklrk$21jn9$1@dont-email.me> <vplbnp$25vp2$5@dont-email.me>
 <b122ed1dc2c636321627d4dfc7936e463f920690@i2pn2.org>
 <vpltcn$28j3a$6@dont-email.me>
 <7eb818791abdbf7830165a16375b0aa7c82be013@i2pn2.org>
 <vpn9eu$2jkdj$4@dont-email.me> <vpnehd$2kaqd$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpoqs2$2vaf3$6@dont-email.me> <vppd06$323f6$4@dont-email.me>
 <vpqhbe$38ma4$2@dont-email.me>
 <a32b354038871cac1af0768e09e39e3a5e14ce43@i2pn2.org>
 <vprdr3$3gqpb$4@dont-email.me>
 <f056bf119ac996144e574446c1929fd9d9dd709f@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2025 02:57:57 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f774896c05da03d2a2f11555a920a204";
	logging-data="4092969"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fJPR+lMoGkfYZvWPASedX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KAAvIw7t8WJMDbwvYPNGpQwE+kQ=
In-Reply-To: <f056bf119ac996144e574446c1929fd9d9dd709f@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250228-8, 2/28/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7304

On 2/28/2025 8:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/27/25 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/27/2025 7:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/27/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 27.feb.2025 om 05:49 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 2/26/2025 10:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 26.feb.2025 om 15:45 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the 
>>>>>>>>>> fact that
>>>>>>>>>> HHH emulates this DD.
>>>>>>>>> On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
>>>>>>>>> You don't understand this simple entanglement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless having no influence causes itself to
>>>>>>>> never terminate then the one influence that
>>>>>>>> it must have is stopping the emulation of this input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the influence is that it does not complete the simulation, but 
>>>>>>> aborts it, then the programmer should understand that the 
>>>>>>> simulated simulation has the same behaviour, causing halting 
>>>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have only been talking abort normal termination of a
>>>>>> C function for several weeks. Perhaps you have no
>>>>>> idea what "normal termination" means.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that Olcott does not understand the terminology. It has 
>>>>> been proven by direct execution that the finite string given to HHH 
>>>>> describes a program that terminates normally.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That HHH is unable to reach this normally termination is a failure 
>>>>> of HHH. This failure of HHH does not change the behaviour described 
>>>>> by this finite string.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aborting a program with halting behaviour
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have not been talking about halting for a long
>>>>>> time. This term has proven to be far too vague.
>>>>>> Normal termination of a C function means reaching
>>>>>> its "return" instruction. Zero vagueness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Introducing the concept of aborting a program before it can reach 
>>>>> its return instruction to prove its 'non-termination' makes it even 
>>>>> more vague.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  does not change it into non- halting. It is childish to claim 
>>>>>>> that when you close your eyes, things do not happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't even keep track of what we are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Change of subject to avoid a honest discussion.
>>>>> It is childish to claim that things do not happen when you close 
>>>>> your eyes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I say that DD emulated by HHH cannot terminate
>>>> normally it is flat out dishonest to say that I am
>>>> wrong based on another different DD that has different behavior.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That claim is just flat out dishonest, and proves you don't 
>>> understand the meaning of the words you are using.
>>>
>>
>> DD emulated by HHH explicitly excludes directly executed DD
>> that has a different execution trace.
> 
> Then you don't define "Correct emulation" correctly.
> 
> What step, actually correctly emulated, differed between the "correct 
> emulation" done by HHH, and the direct execution of DD.
> 
>>
>> It has always been ridiculously stupid for anyone
>> to expect HHH to report on any behavior besides
>> the behavior that its finite string input specifies.
>>
>>
> 
> But the behivor that its finite string input specifies, is, by the 
> definition of the problem, the behavior of the direct execution of the 
> program the string represents. The problem we run into is the language 
> of the problem doesn't allow us to specify in the program or on the tape 
> a "reference" to who is simulating us, since that is a violation of the 
> model of a program being able to be directly run, and that inputs must 
> be fixed strings.
> 
> That you don't follow definitions, is just the final proof that you are 
> nothing but a pathological liar.
> 
> It seems your logic is built on the fantasy that you can define things 
> in what every crazy method you want, ignoring the requirements.
> 
> Perhaps what you are actually afraid of is the fact that LIFE has a set 
> of rules, and violation of them will have consequences, and you have 
> been breaking them all you life, so you know the consequences, so you 
> are trying to convince yourself that rules don't actually exist, and 
> thus there are no consequences for breaking them. That is why you 
> believe in the Truth Fairy that can make true whatever you wish for, 
> even if it isn't.
> 
> Sorry, you are must a stupd pathological lying idiot, living in the 
> insanity of a make believe world.

see this post
DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally --- x86 code

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer