Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 13. Jul 2024, 13:18:27
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v6traj$3imib$7@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/13/2024 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-12 14:32:28 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
 
Op 12.jul.2024 om 15:25 schreef olcott:
On 7/12/2024 3:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-11 14:12:15 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 7/11/2024 1:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-10 18:58:14 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 7/10/2024 1:55 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
Op 10.jul.2024 om 20:12 schreef Alan Mackenzie:
[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>
Proving that the simulation is incorrect. Because a correct simulation
would not abort a halting program halfway its simulation.
>
Just for clarity, a correct simulation wouldn't abort a non-halting
program either, would it?  Or have I misunderstood this correctness?
>
[ .... ]
>
>
A non-halting program cannot be simulated correctly in a finite time.
So, it depends whether we can call it a correct simulation, when it does
not abort. But, for some meaning of 'correct', indeed, a simulator
should not abort a non-halting program either.
>
OK, thanks!
>
>
In other words he is saying that when you do
1 step correctly you did 0 steps correctly.
>
That is possible as "correctly" has different meaning when talking
about steps from when talking about simulations.
>
>
*No that is always false*
When you did one anythings correctly then you did
more than zero anythings correctly.
>
If I only correcly do one thing that is not a part of my routine then
I don't do my routine correctly. If I do correctly every part of my routine
but do them in a wrong order I don't do my routine correctly.
>
>
Fred was trying to get away with saying that when 1
step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH that 0 steps
were emulated correctly.
>
>
Olcott has a problem with the English language.
I said that when a program needs 2 cycles of simulation, it is incorrect to abort after 1 cycle and decide it is non-halting.
His problem seems to be that he thinks that skipping x86 instructions in the simulation does not change the behaviour of a program.
>
There are more situations where he seems to have a problem with the English language. He thinks that everything greater than 2 equals infinity. When a program has more than two recursions, he thinks it is non-halting.
>
It is very difficult to discuss with someone with such a poor understanding of the English language, because he continuously twists the meaning of words, both his own words as well as the words of his opponents.
 I think he is less harmful that way. His lack of clarity and obvious twisting
of the meaning of words reduce the risk that anyone would believe what he
tries to say.
 
*This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
reject its input DDD as non-halting.
People disagree with this on the basis they they believe
that they can disagree with the x86 language. That is the
same as disagreeing with arithmetic, not allowed.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Jul 24 * DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.119olcott
10 Jul 24 +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1olcott
10 Jul 24 +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.93Fred. Zwarts
10 Jul 24 i+* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.37olcott
10 Jul 24 ii+- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
11 Jul 24 ii+- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
11 Jul 24 ii`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.34Mikko
11 Jul 24 ii `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.33olcott
11 Jul 24 ii  +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.10joes
11 Jul 24 ii  i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.9olcott
11 Jul 24 ii  i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.7joes
11 Jul 24 ii  i i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.6olcott
12 Jul 24 ii  i i +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
12 Jul 24 ii  i i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.4joes
12 Jul 24 ii  i i  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.3olcott
12 Jul 24 ii  i i   `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2joes
12 Jul 24 ii  i i    `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1olcott
12 Jul 24 ii  i `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
12 Jul 24 ii  +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
12 Jul 24 ii  +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.20Mikko
12 Jul 24 ii  i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.19olcott
12 Jul 24 ii  i +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
13 Jul 24 ii  i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.14Mikko
13 Jul 24 ii  i i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.13olcott
13 Jul 24 ii  i i +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
13 Jul 24 ii  i i +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
14 Jul 24 ii  i i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.10Mikko
14 Jul 24 ii  i i  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.9olcott
14 Jul 24 ii  i i   +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
15 Jul 24 ii  i i   +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1joes
15 Jul 24 ii  i i   `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.6Mikko
15 Jul 24 ii  i i    `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.5olcott
16 Jul 24 ii  i i     `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.4Mikko
16 Jul 24 ii  i i      `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.3olcott
17 Jul 24 ii  i i       +- Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
17 Jul 24 ii  i i       `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Mikko
14 Jul 24 ii  i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.3joes
14 Jul 24 ii  i  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2olcott
14 Jul 24 ii  i   `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
12 Jul 24 ii  `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Mikko
10 Jul 24 i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.55Alan Mackenzie
10 Jul 24 i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.50Fred. Zwarts
10 Jul 24 i i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.49Alan Mackenzie
10 Jul 24 i i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.44olcott
11 Jul 24 i i i+* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.40Mikko
11 Jul 24 i i ii`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.39olcott
12 Jul 24 i i ii +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
12 Jul 24 i i ii `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.37Mikko
12 Jul 24 i i ii  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.36olcott
12 Jul 24 i i ii   `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.35Fred. Zwarts
13 Jul 24 i i ii    `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.34Mikko
13 Jul 24 i i ii     `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.33olcott
13 Jul 24 i i ii      +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
13 Jul 24 i i ii      +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
14 Jul 24 i i ii      `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.30Mikko
14 Jul 24 i i ii       `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.29olcott
14 Jul 24 i i ii        +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
15 Jul 24 i i ii        `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.27Mikko
15 Jul 24 i i ii         `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention26olcott
16 Jul 24 i i ii          +- Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is incorrectly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention1Richard Damon
16 Jul 24 i i ii          `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention24Mikko
16 Jul 24 i i ii           `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention23olcott
17 Jul 24 i i ii            +- Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention1Richard Damon
17 Jul 24 i i ii            `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention21Mikko
17 Jul 24 i i ii             `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention20olcott
17 Jul 24 i i ii              +- Re: DDD emulated by HHH is incorrectly rejected as non-halting.1joes
18 Jul 24 i i ii              `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention18Mikko
18 Jul 24 i i ii               `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention17olcott
19 Jul 24 i i ii                `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention16Mikko
19 Jul 24 i i ii                 `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention15olcott
19 Jul 24 i i ii                  +- Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is incorrectly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention1Richard Damon
20 Jul 24 i i ii                  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention13Mikko
20 Jul 24 i i ii                   `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention12olcott
21 Jul 24 i i ii                    `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting. --- You are not paying attention11Mikko
21 Jul 24 i i ii                     `* Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic10olcott
21 Jul 24 i i ii                      +- Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic1Richard Damon
22 Jul 24 i i ii                      `* Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic8Mikko
22 Jul 24 i i ii                       `* Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic7olcott
23 Jul 24 i i ii                        +- Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic1Richard Damon
23 Jul 24 i i ii                        `* Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic5Mikko
23 Jul 24 i i ii                         `* Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic4olcott
24 Jul 24 i i ii                          +- Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic1Richard Damon
25 Jul 24 i i ii                          `* Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic2Mikko
25 Jul 24 i i ii                           `- Re: Tarski / Gödel and redefining the Foundation of Logic1olcott
11 Jul 24 i i i`* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.3Fred. Zwarts
11 Jul 24 i i i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting --- incorrect either way2olcott
12 Jul 24 i i i  `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting --- incorrect either way1Richard Damon
10 Jul 24 i i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.4olcott
11 Jul 24 i i  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.3Fred. Zwarts
11 Jul 24 i i   `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2olcott
12 Jul 24 i i    `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
10 Jul 24 i +* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2olcott
11 Jul 24 i i`- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
10 Jul 24 i `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.2olcott
11 Jul 24 i  `- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Fred. Zwarts
11 Jul 24 +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
11 Jul 24 `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.23Mikko
11 Jul 24  `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.22olcott
12 Jul 24   +- Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.1Richard Damon
12 Jul 24   `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.20Mikko
12 Jul 24    `* Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting.19olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal