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: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 21:26:20 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <3ade9e84224ba9b99c7363e0e9b69181804b7daa@i2pn2.org> <7d3fb4c3b3ef4773a1e411e3f44d9251581ac403@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 21:26:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="221625c8ee30a140870d84331232caab"; logging-data="1039659"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rb1LXncILMbJI8tQ5Bfqf" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:suRF2PGR5aNt835qIVSRElDDSjc= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: nl, en-GB Op 22.apr.2025 om 20:43 schreef olcott: > On 4/22/2025 10:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 22.apr.2025 om 16:07 schreef olcott: >>> On 4/22/2025 7:40 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Mon, 14 Apr 2025 18:50:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 4/14/2025 4:32 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Sun, 13 Apr 2025 14:54:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 4/13/2025 9:46 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Thu, 03 Apr 2025 16:57:43 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2025 1:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-03 02:08:22 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is a truism that a correct x86 emulator would emulate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself emulating DDD whenever DDD calls this emulator with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself. >>>>>>>>>> Which does not agree or disagree with my comment nor say anything >>>>>>>>>> about it, >>>>>>>>>> and it doesn't clarify any aspect of your statement that i >>>>>>>>>> commented. >>>>>>>>>> If there is any indirect connection to anything relevant that >>>>>>>>>> connection is not presented, leaving your response unconnected >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> therefore irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>> So you did not reply to the immediated context. >>>>>>>>> THE FACT THAT DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES NOT HALT IS NOT RELEVANT >>>>>>>>> TO A >>>>>>>>> CORRECT DECISION BY A HALT DECIDER? >>>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> To clarify: that *HHH* does not simulate DDD halting has no >>>>>> bearing on >>>>>> its direct execution. >>>>> THE DIRECT EXECUTION IS NOT WHAT IT SEES THUS FORBIDDING IT FROM >>>>> REPORTING ON THE DIRECT EXECUTION. >>>> It sure ought to see the same thing the directly executing processor >>>> does. >>>> >>> >>> HHH cannot possibly see what HHH1. >>> >> >> Yes, the programmer made HHH such that it cannot see the behaviour. > > typedef void (*ptr)(); > int HHH(ptr P); > int HHH1(ptr P); > > int DD() > { >   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >   if (Halt_Status) >     HERE: goto HERE; >   return Halt_Status; > } > > int main() > { >   HHH1(DD); > } > > It is stupid to think that HHH can see anything > that it caller does. It is stupid to think that when HHH is made blind for some facts by the programmer, that these facts are not true. > >> This failure of HHH does not say anything about the behaviour >> specified by the input. According to the semantics of the x86 >> language, this input specifies a halting program, as proven by direct >> execution and world- class simulators. That HHH is unable to reach the >> end of this halting program, does not change the semantics of the x86 >> language. > >