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: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:50:12 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <83a2ddb381b16ac04f10a99c0420bbf61e32fbed@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:50:12 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2132706"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4532 Lines: 63 On 7/4/24 12:45 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/4/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote: >> 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 are. DDD and the HHH that DDD calls are in the > same process context. The DDD that the emulated HHH > emulates is in another process context. But identical programs, even in different (but equivalent) execution conttexts will do the same thing. > >>>>> 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? >> > > When the directly executed DDD calls HHH(DDD) the > DDD that HHH emulates is in an entirely different > process context. The first one halts only because > HHH correctly determines that its DDD does not halt. > But the exact same code. I guess you don't understand that the same code with the same inputs generates the same results. That is a fundamental property that we depend upon to run all our programs.