Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 22:09:46 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 98 Message-ID: References: <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org> <39c74e68a47f768d432f5528493b6db9b946ea83@i2pn2.org> <65d495d5d1da61e1bff8426a80fb7d6b046a7f71@i2pn2.org> <4a546b429e06c8c8a56ff3dcbf638c5c4fd0be91@i2pn2.org> <999ca12a3fa312214661d4e8d6a8ca26fe9eaf35@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 05:09:48 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="84b3281cc50da96d4f212543eabff5de"; logging-data="1830352"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SqcG8DQG/0Ek+qAUbclFZ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:sOPiQL0vnqvN49XAtZDGEozY04s= In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250224-8, 2/24/2025), Outbound message On 2/24/2025 10:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 2/24/25 8:16 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 2/24/2025 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 2/24/25 6:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 2/24/2025 3:32 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Sun, 23 Feb 2025 21:36:14 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 2/23/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/23/25 12:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 8:41 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 7:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/25 11:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 5:05 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:25:27 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 4:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have given everyone here all of the complete source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a few years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every post that I have been talking about for two or more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years has referred to variations of that same code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.  It would be a relief if you could move on to posting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something new and fresh. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as people fully address rather than endlessly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodge my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> key points I will be done. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Honestly, you're gonna die first, one way or the other. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's start with a root point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the other points validate this root point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly determines* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *the non-halt status of DD* >>>>>>>>>>>>> Since DD halts, that's dead in the water. >>>>>>>>>>>> Despicably intentionally dishonest attempts at the straw-man >>>>>>>>>>>> deception aside: >>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>>>> normally >>>>>>>>>>>> by reaching its own "return" instruction. >>>>>>>>>>> Only because that statement is based on a false premise. >>>>>>>>>>> Since HHH doesn't correctly simulate its input, your >>>>>>>>>>> statement is >>>>>>>>>>> just a fabrication of your imagination. >>>>>>>>>> *Correct simulation means emulates the machine code as specified* >>>>>>>>>> It cannot mean imagining a different sequence than the one >>>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>>> machine code specifies. That most people here are clueless >>>>>>>>>> about x86 >>>>>>>>>> machine code is far less than no rebuttal at all. >>>>>>>>>> When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) this call cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>> return to the emulator, conclusively proving that >>>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>>> normally by >>>>>>>>>> reaching its own "return" instruction. >>>>>>>>>> Assuming that it does return is simply stupid. >>>>>>>>> Similarly, when no_numbers_greater_than_10 emulated by F calls >>>>>>>>> F(0) >>>>>>>>> this call cannot possibly return to the emulator, conclusively >>>>>>>>> proving that >>>>>>>> Not true. The stack eventually unwinds after ten emulations. >>>>>>> Just like a CORRECT emulation of DD would if the HHH doing the >>>>>>> emulation didn't abort (but doing it by the hypothetical of NOT >>>>>>> changing the HHH that DD calls, since that must be the original >>>>>>> HHH). >>>>>>> Your problem is you have lied to yourself about what is a "correct >>>>>>> emulation" >>>>>> In other words you "believe" that the call from DD to HHH(DD) returns >>>>>> when the above DD is emulated by HHH. >>>>>> This is proven to be counter-factual by anyone that understands the >>>>>> above code. >>>>> The code is wrong. The call to HHH should return, because we know that >>>>> HHH is a decider. You incorrectly turn off the abort check. >>>>> >>>> >>>> When you put code in an infinite loop then this code DOES NOT TERMINATE >>>> NO MATTER WTF IT "SHOULD" DO. >>>> >>> >>> What infinite loop? >>> >> >> If an arbitrary decider is placed in any >> infinite loop then IT WILL NOT TERMINATE >> NO MATTER WTF ITS SUPPOSED TO DO. > > Sure it will, an infinite number of times, once for each call to it. > Joes did not seem to understand that. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer