Re: Hypothetical possibilities

Op 21.jul.2024 om 16:25 schreef olcott:

On 7/21/2024 5:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jul.2024 om 22:08 schreef olcott:

On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>

Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I will
repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

>
This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but
one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
>
Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract reasoning,
combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
learning at all.
>
May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?
>
Thanks!
>

>
So you are going to stupidly disagree with this?
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
It *is* a fact that no DDD correctly simulated by any
pure function HHH ever reaches its own return instruction.

>
Which proves that these simulations are incorrect.
>

 _DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
 *You don't get to be the judge of this*

Neither are *you*.

As long as the x86 machine language instructions of DDD
are emulated by HHH according to the semantic meaning
of these instructions then the emulation is correct and
anyone that disagrees is disagreeing with a tautology.

But if some x86 instructions are skipped, then it is dishonest to say that it is a correct simulation. If the last cycle of HHH, after which it would halt, is skipped by the simulation, then the simulation is incorrect.
It is dishonest to deny that skipping instructions is correct according to the semantics of the x86 language.

 This correct emulation must take into account the fact
that DDD is calling its own emulator: HHH(DDD) in recursive
emulation.
 

And since HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly, the simulation of DDD is incorrect.
DDD is a misleading and unneeded complication. It is easy to eliminate DDD:
        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }
This has the same problem. This proves that the problem is not in DDD, but in HHH, which halts when it aborts the simulation, but it decides that the simulation of itself does not halt.
It shows that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
HHH is simply unable to decide about finite recursions.
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
It decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion, which is incorrect.
Olcott's HHH is programmed to abort the simulation after N cycles of recursive simulations. Therefore, it is incorrect to abort the simulation of HHH when the simulated HHH has performed only N-1 cycles, because that changes the behaviour of HHH.
Since the simulated HHH always runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, it is clear that HHH can never simulate enough cycles for a correct simulation, as is required by the x86 language.
Therefore, the simulation is incorrect according to the criteria olcott stipulated.
The conclusion is simple:
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end.
Olcott's own claim that the simulated HHH does not reach its end confirms it. The trace he has shown also proves that HHH cannot reach the end of its own simulation. So, his own claims prove that it is true that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end, which makes the simulation incorrect.
Sipser would agree that this incorrect simulation cannot be used to detect a non-halting behaviour.
Olcott does not know how to point to an error in this explanation, but prefers to ignore it. He even consistently removes it from the citations. So, I will repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.