Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 18:35:11 +0000
Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting
 Joes
Newsgroups: comp.theory
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
 <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me> <v9l7hf$vao1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
From: Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 19:35:10 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 59
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-l6LSNyEIceyW+2A4lxPGn0L81oTsI5Kh9Kjb30PAbMe0ZkBKRroFUCkYzIgs+W1N7ZowfvHRGlDt+Mw!Xula78heOdx3op1hVerbOObIsnIG5q4qkaKeO0nEd10ycto6Jaa3v/5zoW9/NMWfiirxymL4fxq+!XVnVJaTSQrogKFX1HhOfsgnjVkc=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 3937

On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote:
> On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:
>>>>> On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
>>>>>>>> Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
>>>>>>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,
>>>>>>> That is what I said dufuss.
>>>>>> You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as
>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient
>>>>>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.
>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,
>>>>>>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller*
>>>>>> how *HHH* returns
>>>>
>>>>>> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
>>>>>>     DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates
>>>> DDD
>>>>>>     second level
>>>>>>       DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
>>>>>>     HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts
>>>> voila
>>>>>> HHH halts
>>>>>
>>>>> You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts its
>>>>> simulation [line 5 above],
>>>>> then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
>>>>> earlier.  You know that, right?
>>>
>>>> Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical
>>>> reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort
>>>> the same.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
>>> wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
>>> waiting forever.
>> Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would abort 
>> and halt.
> 
> Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong.

For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct.

And stop misquoting me.  You lack the intelligence to understand what other posters are saying, so I 
suggest you simply stop trying to quote them, just to be safe.


Mike.