Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 07:43:50 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 07:43:50 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2522611"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 2218 Lines: 30 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 > (the first one doesn't even have a caller) > Use the above machine language instructions to show this. 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 -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.