Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 21. Jul 2024, 05:15:23
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v7i20r$3ucnd$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/20/2024 10:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/20/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/20/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/20/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/20/2024 8:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/20/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/20/2024 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/20/24 7:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/20/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/20/24 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/20/2024 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/20/24 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/20/2024 4:06 PM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:05:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/20/2024 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/20/24 3:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/20/2024 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 20.jul.2024 om 17:28 schreef olcott:
>
(a) Termination Analyzers / Partial Halt Deciders must halt this is
a design requirement.
(b) Every simulating termination analyzer HHH either aborts the
simulation of its input or not.
(c) Within the hypothetical case where HHH does not abort the
simulation of its input {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD}
never stop running.
This violates the design requirement of (a) therefore HHH must abort
the simulation of its input.
You missed a couple details:
A terminating input shouldn't be aborted, or at least not classified
as not terminating. Terminating inputs needn't be aborted; they and the
simulator halt on their own.
>
And when it aborts, the simulation is incorrect. When HHH aborts and
halts, it is not needed to abort its simulation, because it will halt
of its own.
So you are trying to get away with saying that no HHH ever needs to
abort the simulation of its input and HHH will stop running?
Pretty much.
It is the fact that HHH DOES abort its simulation that makes it not
need to.
No stupid it is not a fact that every HHH that can possibly exist aborts
its simulation.
I thought they all halt after a finite number of steps?
>
>
void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}
>
DDD correctly simulated by pure function HHH cannot
possibly reach its own return instruction.
>
>
Wrong.
>
>
You know that you are lying about this as you admit below:
>
Nope, YOU just don't what the words mean, and reckless disregard the teaching you have been getting, which makes your errors not just honest mistakes but reckless pathological lies.
>
>
It may be that the simulation by HHH never reaches that point,
>
but if HHH aborts its simuliaton and returns (as required for it to be a decider) then the behavior of DDD
>
Simulated by HHH is to Die, stop running, no longer function.
>
Nope, HHH is NOT the "Machine" that determines what the code does, so can not "Kill" it.
>
>
So you are trying to get away with the lie
that an aborted simulation keeps on running.
>
>
No, but the BEHAVIOR of the program does, and that is what matters.
>
So you agree that DDD correctly simulated by any pure function
HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>
>
>
No, I will let you claim (without proof, so we can argue tha later) that the simulation by HHH of DDD does not reach the return, but the behavior of the DDD simuliated by HHH continues,
>
We are talking about real hardware here not figments
of your imagination.
>
>
No, you are not. The "Hardware" would be the actual CPU chip which never stops the program when it is running. A Simulator is just a piece of software running on it, and what it does can't affect the behavior of the actual CPU running the program.
>
>
When an actual x86 emulator stops emulating its input
this emulated input immediately stops running.
>
>
Nope, that is you stupidity where you confuse the observation for the facts.
>
It has been told to you MANY times, but it seems that you just can not understand it.
>
The SIMULATION is an observation of the program, that if it stops doesn't affect the actual behavior of the program in question.
>
>
*If the simulator stops simulating then the simulated stops running*
 No, the SIMULA*TION* stops running, the SIMULATED (which is the actual program) behaviof continues.
 
Yes you are clueless.
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
When the simulation stops running the whole program
exits to the operating system.

Does you computer program stop at a point just because someone aborted a simulation at that poiint?
 
--
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
20 Jul 24 * Hypothetical possibilities221olcott
20 Jul 24 +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities3Richard Damon
20 Jul 24 i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities2olcott
20 Jul 24 i `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Richard Damon
20 Jul 24 +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities101Fred. Zwarts
20 Jul 24 i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities100olcott
20 Jul 24 i +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities47Fred. Zwarts
20 Jul 24 i i+* Re: Hypothetical possibilities6olcott
20 Jul 24 i ii+* Re: Hypothetical possibilities4Richard Damon
20 Jul 24 i iii`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities3olcott
20 Jul 24 i iii +- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i iii `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Fred. Zwarts
21 Jul 24 i ii`- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Fred. Zwarts
20 Jul 24 i i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities40Alan Mackenzie
20 Jul 24 i i +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities11olcott
20 Jul 24 i i i+* Re: Hypothetical possibilities2Alan Mackenzie
22 Jul 24 i i ii`- Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Alan Mackenzie tries to get away with mere rhetoric as a rebuttal1olcott
21 Jul 24 i i i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities8Fred. Zwarts
21 Jul 24 i i i `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities7olcott
21 Jul 24 i i i  +* Re: Recursive simulation (was: Hypothetical possibilities)3joes
21 Jul 24 i i i  i`* Re: Recursive simulation2olcott
21 Jul 24 i i i  i `- Re: Recursive simulation1Fred. Zwarts
21 Jul 24 i i i  +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities2Fred. Zwarts
21 Jul 24 i i i  i`- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1joes
21 Jul 24 i i i  `- Re: Hypothetical IMpossibilities1Richard Damon
20 Jul 24 i i +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities2olcott
21 Jul 24 i i i`- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Richard Damon
20 Jul 24 i i +- Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Alan Mackenzie1olcott
20 Jul 24 i i +- Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Alan Mackenzie1olcott
21 Jul 24 i i +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities7olcott
21 Jul 24 i i i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities6Fred. Zwarts
21 Jul 24 i i i `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities5olcott
21 Jul 24 i i i  +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities3Fred. Zwarts
22 Jul 24 i i i  i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities2olcott
22 Jul 24 i i i  i `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Fred. Zwarts
21 Jul 24 i i i  `- Re: Hypothetical IMpossibilities1Richard Damon
22 Jul 24 i i +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric16olcott
22 Jul 24 i i i+- Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric1Fred. Zwarts
22 Jul 24 i i i+* Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric4Alan Mackenzie
22 Jul 24 i i ii+- Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric --- Liar?1olcott
22 Jul 24 i i ii`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away denying tautologies2olcott
23 Jul 24 i i ii `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away denying tautologies1Fred. Zwarts
23 Jul 24 i i i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric10Mikko
23 Jul 24 i i i `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric9olcott
23 Jul 24 i i i  +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric7Alan Mackenzie
23 Jul 24 i i i  i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric --- Dishonest reviews that ignore what I say6olcott
23 Jul 24 i i i  i +- Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric --- Dishonest reviews that ignore what I say1Fred. Zwarts
24 Jul 24 i i i  i `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric --- Dishonest reviews that ignore what I say4Richard Damon
24 Jul 24 i i i  i  `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Mindless robots programmed to disagree3olcott
24 Jul 24 i i i  i   +- Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Olcott is a Mindless robots programmed to disagree1Richard Damon
24 Jul 24 i i i  i   `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Mindless robots programmed to disagree1Fred. Zwarts
25 Jul 24 i i i  `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Fake rebuttals trying to get away with mere rhetoric1Mikko
22 Jul 24 i i `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Alan Mackenzie tries to get away with mere rhetoric as a rebuttal1olcott
20 Jul 24 i `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities52Richard Damon
20 Jul 24 i  `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities51olcott
20 Jul 24 i   +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities49joes
20 Jul 24 i   i+- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Richard Damon
20 Jul 24 i   i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities47olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities46Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i  `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities45olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i   `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities44Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i    `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities43olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i     `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities42Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i      `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities41olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i       `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities40Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i        +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities31olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities30Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i        i +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities6olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        i i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities5Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i        i i `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities4olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        i i  `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities3Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i        i i   `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities2olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        i i    `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i        i `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully23olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        i  +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully6olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        i  i+- Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully1Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i        i  i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully4joes
21 Jul 24 i   i        i  i `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully3olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        i  i  `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully2joes
21 Jul 24 i   i        i  i   `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully1olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        i  `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully16Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i        i   +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully14olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        i   i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully13Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i        i   i +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully8olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        i   i i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully7joes
21 Jul 24 i   i        i   i i `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully6olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        i   i i  +* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully4joes
21 Jul 24 i   i        i   i i  i`* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully3olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        i   i i  i +- Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully1Fred. Zwarts
21 Jul 24 i   i        i   i i  i `- Re: Hypothetical IMpossibilities -- I reread this again more carefully1Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i        i   i i  `- Re: Hypothetical IMpossibilities -- I reread this again more carefully1Richard Damon
22 Jul 24 i   i        i   i `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully4olcott
22 Jul 24 i   i        i   i  `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully3Richard Damon
22 Jul 24 i   i        i   i   `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully2olcott
23 Jul 24 i   i        i   i    `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully1Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i        i   `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully --- correction1olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i        `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities8olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i         `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities7Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i          `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities6olcott
21 Jul 24 i   i           `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities5Richard Damon
21 Jul 24 i   i            `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities4olcott
20 Jul 24 i   `- Re: Hypothetical possibilities1Richard Damon
22 Jul 24 `* Re: Hypothetical possibilities116Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal