Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 10:04:36 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 119 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 17:04:37 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bb86fb6b7518b299c8da34bf84593b17"; logging-data="825195"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hs+QDZdb+nTZMFMM+Ac8u" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:liwUHi2EBTIKKFjLqB/06dkwk/k= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6064 On 8/9/2024 1:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 08.aug.2024 om 21:18 schreef olcott: >> On 8/8/2024 2:04 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 08.aug.2024 om 20:48 schreef olcott: >>>> On 8/8/2024 1:44 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 08.aug.2024 om 15:15 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 8/8/2024 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 07.aug.2024 om 15:01 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 8/7/2024 3:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 04.aug.2024 om 15:11 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 17:20 schreef olcott:>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When you try to show how DDD simulated by HHH does >>>>>>>>>>>> reach its "return" instruction you must necessarily >>>>>>>>>>>> must fail unless you cheat by disagreeing with the >>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of C. That you fail to have a sufficient >>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of the semantics of C is less than no >>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal what-so-ever. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately that is not what I try, because I understand that >>>>>>>>>>> HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In other words when HHH simulates itself simulating DDD it >>>>>>>>>> is supposed to do something other than simulating itself >>>>>>>>>> simulating DDD ???  Do you expect it to make a cup of coffee? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is English too difficult for you. I said HHH cannot do it >>>>>>>>> correctly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *According to an incorrect criteria of correct* >>>>>>>> You keep trying to get away with disagreeing with >>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 language. *That is not allowed* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again accusations without evidence. >>>>>>> We proved that HHH deviated from the semantics of the x86 >>>>>>> language by skipping the last few instructions of a halting program. >>>>>> >>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>    return; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely >>>>>> *emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In >>>>>> none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach >>>>>> its "return" instruction halt state. >>>>>> >>>>>> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this* >>>>>> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this* >>>>>> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this* >>>>> >>>>> Indeed. And this correctly proves that the simulation failed, not >>>>> because of an instruction simulated incorrectly, but because >>>>> instructions are skipped. >>>> >>>> void Infinite_Recursion() >>>> { >>>>    Infinite_Recursion(); >>>>    return; >>>> } >>> >>> Dreaming again of an infinite recursion? >>> >>>> >>>> The return instruction in both cases is unreachable code. >>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH and Infinite_Recursion >>>> correctly emulated by HHH cannot reach the "return" >>>> instruction. >>> >>> It cannot reach it, because it was programmed to abort one cycle >>> before the program would end. >>> >> >> *Maybe you have ADD like Richard has. I already said this above* >> When zero to infinity steps of DDD are correctly emulated by >> HHH no DDD ever reaches its own "return" instruction. >> >> Maybe the issue is that you don't know programming well enough >> to understand that this is true. > > Maybe you should try to learn English. I confirmed hat HHH cannot reach > the end of the simulation of itself. Yes and cups of coffee are made from ground coffee beans. Changing the subject is merely the dishonest dodge of the strawman deception. > Maybe you should learn to program. When the simulation of a halting > program is unable to reach the end, it proves that the simulation is > incorrect. void Infinite_Loop() { HERE: goto HERE; } The correct simulation of the above never halts. > Everybody with sufficient programming knowledge understands that a > simulator cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end, > because either it does not halt, or it misses the last cycle, the final > part of the simulation. When a simulating termination analyzer is essentially called in infinite recursion it is smart enough to abort. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer