Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Everyone here seems to consistently lie about this Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 09:53:08 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 99 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 08:53:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7ca8cc5ca66551310006596dadbb32e6"; logging-data="4000001"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ubP4bumJJ68w09w/ATN4j" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:8rIpwG+Lyzc7J9M/O9MGGibvS3o= Bytes: 4684 On 2024-08-07 13:14:13 +0000, olcott said: > On 8/7/2024 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-08-06 11:35:51 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 8/6/2024 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-08-05 12:45:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 8/5/2024 2:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-08-04 12:33:20 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 2:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-08-03 13:48:12 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-02 02:09:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>      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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86 >>>>>>>>>>> language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD >>>>>>>>>>> emulates itself emulating DDD >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *UNTIL* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly determines that never aborting this >>>>>>>>>>> emulation would cause DDD and HHH to endlessly repeat. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The determination is not correct. DDD is a halting computation, as >>>>>>>>>> correctely determined by HHH1 or simly calling it from main. It is >>>>>>>>>> not possible to correctly determine that ha haling computation is >>>>>>>>>> non-halting, as is self-evdent from the meaning of the words. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>   by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Who here is too stupid to know that whether DDD can reach its >>>>>>>> own return instruction depends on code not shown below? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is stipulated that HHH is an x86 emulator the emulates >>>>>>> N instructions of DDD where N is 0 to infinity. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is not stipulated above. Anyway, that stipulation would not >>>>>> alter the correctness of my answer. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>> int HHH(ptr P); >>>>> >>>>> void DDD() >>>>> { >>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>    return; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> int main() >>>>> { >>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> In other words you do not know C well enough to comprehend >>>>> that DDD correctly simulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach >>>>> its own "return" instruction halt state. >>>> >>>> You are lying again. >>>> >>> >>> I am hypothesizing. >> >> You were and still are lying. There was no word (such as "assume") in >> your calim about me, so it was not a hypothesis but a lie. >> > > Several of your answers seemed to show that you did not > know C very well. Fred and Joes did not seem to know > programming very well. According to our defamation laws "seemed" is not sufficinet to ensure that you aren't jailed. -- Mikko