Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vqk4ea$o4oh$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:18:02 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 75 Message-ID: <vqk4ea$o4oh$3@dont-email.me> References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq8mam$29b9l$5@dont-email.me> <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org> <vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me> <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org> <vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me> <vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me> <vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me> <vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me> <vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me> <vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me> <vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me> <vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me> <vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqh07g$26ac$1@dont-email.me> <vqhio1$5r7r$1@dont-email.me> <vqhm1s$6fo8$2@dont-email.me> <vqih45$bcso$1@dont-email.me> <vqii32$bcd0$3@dont-email.me> <vqijht$bcso$3@dont-email.me> <ea39844506682e56d2f05babaa006b3a29c9861d@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 14:18:03 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9489a26c682238c9921fc6cb3f1d3d5b"; logging-data="791313"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Uy7Oes0/Wx7vMw3HnFgDy" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:9Bjy2NbJxo8hihQvFEKCp2VFEKc= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250309-2, 3/9/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <ea39844506682e56d2f05babaa006b3a29c9861d@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 5221 On 3/9/2025 4:51 AM, joes wrote: > Am Sat, 08 Mar 2025 17:23:41 -0600 schrieb olcott: >> On 3/8/2025 4:58 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 3/8/2025 5:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/8/2025 9:00 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:03 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a simulating >>>>>> termination analyzer specifying infinite recursion or recursive >>>>>> emulation cannot possibly reach their own final state and terminate >>>>>> normally. >>>>> >>>>> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a termination >>>>> analyzer, simulating or otherwise, are specified by the specification >>>>> that is the halting function: >>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly >>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed >>>>> And HHH(DD)==0 fails to meet the above specification >>>> >>>> *THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY THUS IMPOSSIBLY FALSE* Replacing the >>>> code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running >>>> HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate >>>> normally because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. > > But HHH is not an unconditional simulator. It is supposed to break the > cycle. > >>> It must if it is to be classified as a halt decider or termination >>> analyzer as per the definition. >> >> In other words you believe that HHH should just ignore the fact that DD >> makes a call that prevents DD from ever reaching its own final state? > > On the contrary, the call to HHH is guaranteed to return. > >> Neither HHH nor DD have any idea that DD calls its own emulator in >> recursive emulation. >> None-the-less both HHH and anyone with sufficient technical competence >> can see that DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own >> final state. > Not reaching *the* final state (which undoubtedly exists) cannot be > called a correct simulation. > _DD() [00002133] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002134] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002136] 51 push ecx ; make space for local [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD) [00002141] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002144] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax [00002147] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 [0000214b] 7402 jz 0000214f [0000214d] ebfe jmp 0000214d [0000214f] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04] [00002152] 8be5 mov esp,ebp [00002154] 5d pop ebp [00002155] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155] *When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then* DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. I am not going to address any other point until this point is fully understood because the other points cannot be understood until this one is understood. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer