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: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 20:19:14 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 20:19:14 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2951952"; 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: 3601 Lines: 56 Am Thu, 11 Jul 2024 10:05:58 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/11/2024 9:25 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:10:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/11/2024 1:25 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-07-10 17:53:38 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> On 7/10/2024 12:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 10.jul.2024 om 17:03 schreef olcott: >> >>>>>> Unneeded complexity. It is equivalent to: >>>>>>        int main() >>>>>>        { >>>>>>          return HHH(main); >>>>>>        } >>>>> Every time any HHH correctly emulates DDD it calls the x86utm >>>>> operating system to create a separate process context with its own >>>>> memory virtual registers and stack, thus each recursively emulated >>>>> DDD is a different instance. >>>> However, each of those instances has the same sequence of >>>> instructions that the x86 language specifies the same operational >>>> meaning. >>> *That is counter-factual* >> Contradicting yourself? "Counterfactual" usually means "if it were >> different". >> >>> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the semantics of >>> the x86 programming language HHH must abort its emulation of DDD or >>> both HHH and DDD never halt. >> If the recursive call to HHH from DDD halts, the outer HHH doesn't need >> to abort. > Sure and when squares are round you can measure the radius of a square. Do you mean that HHH doesn't halt? >> DDD depends totally on HHH; it halts exactly when HHH does. >> Which it does, because it aborts. > Halting means reaching its own last instruction and terminating > normally. What does HHH do after it aborts? >>> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH1 according to the semantics of >>> the x86 programming language HHH1 need not abort its emulation of DDD >>> because HHH has already done this. >> Where does HHH figure into this? It is not the simulator here. >>> The behavior of DDD emulated by HHH1 is identical to the behavior of >>> the directly executed DDD(). >> At last! > HHH must abort its simulation. HHH1 does not need to do that because HHH > has already done this. No, HHH1 doesn't need to because DDD is just a regular program to it, not constructed to be unsimulatable. > DDD correctly simulated by HHH has provably different behavior than DDD > correctly simulated by HHH1. Which means that HHH is not doing the simulation correctly. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.