Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:34:13 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c8e99a20769f01b994329c64d58090e8c21a3486@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
	<v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
	<v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
	<dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org>
	<v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me> <v632ta$23ohm$2@dont-email.me>
	<v63jej$26loi$6@dont-email.me> <v63s4h$28goi$2@dont-email.me>
	<v63s92$28dpi$3@dont-email.me>
	<e7e50b27b2f0df2cbd65f7dbafa975f597b8ce78@i2pn2.org>
	<v665vj$2oun1$11@dont-email.me>
	<a9f31a178ec10c3a25aa7e03c2574cb3ad01d1c9@i2pn2.org>
	<v6688q$2pc84$1@dont-email.me>
	<c1f8cd395cbc33748f6b82112a1a26fe5df15da1@i2pn2.org>
	<v66gqc$2qr6f$2@dont-email.me>
	<83a2ddb381b16ac04f10a99c0420bbf61e32fbed@i2pn2.org>
	<v66ikm$2r26d$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:34:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2138841"; 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: 3613
Lines: 41

Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 11:29:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/4/2024 11:24 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 10:58:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/4/2024 10:03 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:32:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/4/2024 8:09 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:53:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 6:09 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:55:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly,
>>>>>>>>>> you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>             int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>>>>             int main()
>>>>>>>>>>             {
>>>>>>>>>>               return H(main, 0);
>>>>>>>>>>             }
>>>>>>>>>> You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it
>>>>>>>>>> does not return.
>>>>>>>>> main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact, H does abort it. H then returns to main,
>>>>>>>> which then stops running.
>>>>>>> main correctly simulated by H never returns.
>>>>>> I was talking about main itself.
>>>>> That is not the one that HHH examines.
>>>> Huh? HHH examines main. Sure, it doesn’t /simulate/ the return.
> The x86utm operating system spawns a separate process so that
> H can emulate another different instance of D in this separate process.
> H must call DebugTrace()
> to switch process contexts to emulate one more instruction of D.
Oh, there should also be different instances of H.

>>> There is more than one main() process. One of them cannot possibly
>>> halt and the other one halts.
>> That makes no sense. They have exactly the same code.
> It makes no sense only if you are totally clueless of operating system
> process contexts.
What is their difference?

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.