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

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?
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
...
 > But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it
 > were not halted.  That much is a truism.
Since you fail to point out any supporting reasoning
this would indicate that you have no such reasoning.
You simply guess that I must be wrong and don't want
to bother with trying to show any actual mistake.
I was 100% specific going over each tiny nuance of detail
of exactly how anyone can know that I am correct meeting
the fist half of the professor Sipser approved criterion.
We can't get to the more difficult second half until
after their is agreement on the first half.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer