Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 16:31:08 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 200 Message-ID: References: <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org> <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org> <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org> <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <5VKdndWBS-oqCSz7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 23:31:09 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="198d92f6295c39b86c65eb128f10a699"; logging-data="1958022"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ttHUyvzCRwZc/Uw4oVb22" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:T6FtCFNGVkpDsMvs7HZhhUzWXRE= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 10221 On 8/6/2024 4:15 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 06/08/2024 17:44, olcott wrote: >> On 8/6/2024 11:35 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> On 06/08/2024 17:18, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/6/2024 10:58 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>> On 06/08/2024 04:21, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 8/5/2024 10:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>> On 06/08/2024 03:25, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/5/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-04 18:59:03 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are saying that the infinite one does? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no substitute for facts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the right answer to the wrong question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its "return" instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation and not and direct execution. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you mean anything other than what the words mean you wihout >>>>>>>>>>>>> a definition in the beginning of the same message then it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not reasonable to expect anyone to understand what you mean. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead people may think that you mean what you say or that >>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't know what you are saying. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't understand what the word "emulate" means look >>>>>>>>>>>> it up. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DDD (above) cannot possibly reach its own "return" >>>>>>>>>>>> instruction halt >>>>>>>>>>>> state when its machine code is correctly emulated by HHH. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Only because an HHH that does so never returns to anybody. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you really not understand that recursive emulation >>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to infinite recursion? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not when the emulation is conditional. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion() meets the exact same condition that DDD >>>>>>>> emulated by HHH makes and you know this. Since you are so >>>>>>>> persistently trying to get away contradicting the semantics >>>>>>>> of the x86 language the time is coming where there is zero >>>>>>>> doubt that this is an honest mistake. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ben does correctly understand that the first half of the Sipser >>>>>>>> approved criteria is met. Even Mike finally admitted this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't recall doing that.  Please provide a reference for this. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/2/2024 8:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>  > It's easy enough to say "PO has his own criterion for >>>>>>  > halting, which is materially different from the HP condition, >>>>>>  > and so we all agree PO is correct by his own criterion... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is not agreeing that the first half of the Sipser approved >>>>> criteria is met. >>>> >>>> That my own criterion. Whatever else could you mean? >>>> Do you still disagree with Ben on this point? >>> >>> I do not agree that the first half of Sipser's quote has been >>> satisfied by your scenario.  You have misunderstood/misapplied what >>> Sipser agreed to. >>> >>> >>> Mike. >>> >> >> So you think that Ben is wrong? > > Why is it important to you whether I think Ben is wrong?  I have said > that I disagree with you that your HHH/DDD scenario satisfies the Sipser > criterion. > I am trying to judge whether your disagreement is honest or dishonest. If you don't explain your basis then this seems to indicate that you have no actual basis. > That disagreement is based on what I believe Sipser was agreeing to. You didn't even say that that is. > You have misunderstood/misapplied that agreement.  I don't know what Ben > thinks Sipser was saying, or whether that's even a relevant factor for > what Ben said. > > Ben's statement appears to be based on something else - that you have > some new criterion for "PO-halting", and that if we translate Sipser's > quote to a statement about PO-halting and PO-halt deciders, then / > interpreted like that/ he believes the criterion is, or may well be, met. > Nothing like that. it is not at all any vague unspecified thing. *Ben agreed this this exact criteria has been met* 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 > Since I don't believe that you have any such coherent definition of PO- > halting, That I keep repeating is over-and-over and you never see it seems a little too disingenuous to be called disingenuous. > I cannot interpret Sipser's statement that way.  And if I was > convinced you /did/ have such a coherent definition, I would /still/ > believe that Sipser was referring to conventional halt deciders, and > that therefore his criterion is not met by your HHH/DDD. > It helps Richard when I repeat the same sentence hundreds of times in the same post because he said he has attention deficit disorder. Would it help you if I repeated this 100 times in the same post? 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 > If you think Ben is supporting your broader claim of some problem with ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========