Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?

On 06/08/2024 17:44, olcott wrote:

On 8/6/2024 11:35 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 06/08/2024 17:18, olcott wrote:

On 8/6/2024 10:58 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 06/08/2024 04:21, olcott wrote:

On 8/5/2024 10:12 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 06/08/2024 03:25, olcott wrote:

On 8/5/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/5/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/5/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/5/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-04 18:59:03 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/4/2024 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott:

 >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never

reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>
So you are saying that the infinite one does?
>

>
Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are no substitute for facts.
The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology.

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
That is the right answer to the wrong question.
I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
reaches its "return" instruction.

>
But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above,

>
When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of
emulation and not and direct execution.

>
If you mean anything other than what the words mean you wihout
a definition in the beginning of the same message then it is
not reasonable to expect anyone to understand what you mean.
Instead people may think that you mean what you say or that
you don't know what you are saying.
>

>
If you don't understand what the word "emulate" means look it up.
>
DDD (above) cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction halt
state when its machine code is correctly emulated by HHH.
>

>
Only because an HHH that does so never returns to anybody.
>

>
Do you really not understand that recursive emulation <is>
isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>

>
Not when the emulation is conditional.
>

>
Infinite_Recursion() meets the exact same condition that DDD
emulated by HHH makes and you know this. Since you are so
persistently trying to get away contradicting the semantics
of the x86 language the time is coming where there is zero
doubt that this is an honest mistake.
>
Ben does correctly understand that the first half of the Sipser
approved criteria is met. Even Mike finally admitted this.

>
I don't recall doing that.  Please provide a reference for this.
>

>
On 8/2/2024 8:19 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > It's easy enough to say "PO has his own criterion for
 > halting, which is materially different from the HP condition,
 > and so we all agree PO is correct by his own criterion...
>

>
That is not agreeing that the first half of the Sipser approved criteria is met.

>
That <is> my own criterion. Whatever else could you mean?
Do you still disagree with Ben on this point?

>
I do not agree that the first half of Sipser's quote has been satisfied by your scenario.  You have misunderstood/misapplied what Sipser agreed to.
>
>
Mike.
>

 So you think that Ben is wrong?

Why is it important to you whether I think Ben is wrong?  I have said that I disagree with you that your HHH/DDD scenario satisfies the Sipser criterion.
That disagreement is based on what I believe Sipser was agreeing to.  You have misunderstood/misapplied that agreement.  I don't know what Ben thinks Sipser was saying, or whether that's even a relevant factor for what Ben said.
Ben's statement appears to be based on something else - that you have some new criterion for "PO-halting", and that if we translate Sipser's quote to a statement about PO-halting and PO-halt deciders, then /interpreted like that/ he believes the criterion is, or may well be, met.
Since I don't believe that you have any such coherent definition of PO-halting, I cannot interpret Sipser's statement that way.  And if I was convinced you /did/ have such a coherent definition, I would /still/ believe that Sipser was referring to conventional halt deciders, and that therefore his criterion is not met by your HHH/DDD.
If you think Ben is supporting your broader claim of some problem with HP then you are wrong there. HP is about halting, not PO-halting, and if we interpret Sipser's quote as refering to what would be a valid PO-halting decider strategy, then it is nothing to do with halt deciders.
You'll also appreciate by now that I'm not going to engage in fruitless "arguments" with you about your claims.  So there is no requirement for me to give "evidence" to refute anything you say - I am not arguing or debating with you!  I have done that in the past, but it made absolutely no difference to anything, other than using up time.
Mike.