Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:38:07 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 113 Message-ID: <1039t3v$opkl$2@dont-email.me> References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me> <102q5m6$1tklk$1@dont-email.me> <102rcg2$29lrl$1@dont-email.me> <102rugu$2doc9$8@dont-email.me> <102u1a5$31q0f$1@dont-email.me> <102umo0$369b2$13@dont-email.me> <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me> <1031a1m$3u901$9@dont-email.me> <1033aej$m26r$5@dont-email.me> <1033sll$2uqj$2@dont-email.me> <4d0b60860a2a1bb37153ada4aad5d3595d1c8fc2@i2pn2.org> <10344l1$4ms9$3@dont-email.me> <1036jm0$14sj8$3@dont-email.me> <103785n$195fs$3@dont-email.me> <9d7fde9eb682ca638a83aec2bff016c32d8f4b15@i2pn2.org> <1039681$j159$6@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2025 23:38:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="66fa87458275bba6d41e4f6f2917b163"; logging-data="812693"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+M5A3fTQq3vxEP+rm9857r" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:KwCJXGswbr5H/CRPHDFHNA77XQk= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250622-4, 6/22/2025), Outbound message On 6/22/2025 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/22/25 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/22/2025 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/21/25 5:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2025 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2025 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/25 1:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2025 10:27 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:53:41 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2025 4:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:23 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even though >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the end is only one cycle further from the point where it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gave up >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual and over-your-head. >>>>>>>>> It was an agreement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort >>>>>>>>>>>>> and halt, >>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, >>>>>>>>>>>>> so that >>>>>>>>>>>>> when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only >>>>>>>>>>>>> one cycle >>>>>>>>>>>>> away from the same point. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort >>>>>>>>>>> and halt, >>>>>>>>>>> the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, >>>>>>>>>>> so that >>>>>>>>>>> when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one >>>>>>>>>>> cycle >>>>>>>>>>> away from the same point. >>>>>>>>>> Yes this is factual. >>>>>>>>> Lol, that was the same paragraph. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Every simulated HHH remains one cycle behind its simulator no >>>>>>>>>> matter how >>>>>>>>>> deep the recursive simulations go. This means that the outermost >>>>>>>>>> directly executed HHH reaches its abort criteria first. >>>>>>>>> Yes, no simulator can proceed past a call to itself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is counter-factual and it you knew c well >>>>>>>> enough you could verify that is counter-factual. >>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which shows that HHH never correctly simulates its input, as it >>>>>>> always will abort its simulation, and a partial simulation is >>>>>>> never a correct simulation by the term-of-art definition. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> HHH emulates N x86 machine language instructions of >>>>>> DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language, >>>>>> thus necessarily emulates these N instructions correctly. >>>>>> This also requires HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD >>>>>> at least once. >>>>> >>>>> Which isn't the definition of "Correct Emulation", >>>> *It is the definition of a correct emulation of N instructions* >>>> That you believe that a correct emulation is a complete emulation >>>> of a non terminating input is self-contradictory. Even my close >>>> friend with a 73 IQ knows that contradiction proves falsity. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Which isn't the correct simulation of the input. >>> >> >> A correct simulation of N instructions is >> A correct simulation of N instructions >> in the same way that 1 == 1. >> >> ChatGPT itself recognizes the repeating pattern >> shown in N steps of DD correctly simulated by HHH. >> >> I never have been able to understand how refusing >> to acknowledge this was anything other than dishonesty. >> >> void DDD() >> { >>    HHH(DDD); >>    return; >> } >> >> Anyone that knows what infinite recursion is should >> be able to immediately see that DDD correctly simulated >> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement >> final halt state. > > But it is *NOT* a correct simulation of ALL, Richard is such a liar that he disagrees that when HHH correctly simulates N instructions of DDD this does not mean that N instructions of DDD were correctly simulated. No one here is stupid enough to reject the law of identity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity thus Richard must be lying. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer