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

On 8/6/24 12:18 PM, 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?

No, it isn't, because he means something different by the words than you do.
That seems to be your method of lying, lets words have different meanings so you can play shell games with the truth.

 

I was clearly discussing Ben's comments.  If I had been agreeing with your claim I would have said it explicitly - not that "it's easy enough to say...".  I am very confident that if Sipser actually understood how you were trying to misinterpret his words, he would quickly point out that they do not apply in the scenario you propose.
>

 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 I propose that DDD correctly emulated by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language would be required to abort
its emulation of its finite string input of the x86 machine
language of DDD.

But a correct emulation CAN'T abort, so you are just admitting that you are lying.

 Do you think that professor Sipser would disagree with the
semantics of the x86 language?

He doesn't, but you don't understand them. Once YOU decide that you will make *THE* HHH to abort, then the logic you did about HHH correctly emulating its input no longer applies, as the HHH that DDD calls IS that HHH that you decide would abort, and thus DDD calls an HHH that aborts and returns, and thus DDD will Halt.

 What is every single detail of exactly how you believe
that Professor Sipser could possibly disagree?
 

That you HHH that aborts its simulation and return actually does a correct simulation of the input to allow it to use the second clause.

Pleas stop misrepresenting my views.  [I accept you did not mean to do this, and you have a basic inability to comprehend what other posters are actually saying.  I'll even accept that I might have expressed myself more clearly on this occasion!]
>
In fact, why not go further, and stop altogether your fallacious appeals to authority?  They do not look good to casual readers as they suggest you have no logical reasoning to argue your case.
>
>
Mike.
>

 I resort to appeals to authority to get people to bother to
pay attention to the fact that what I say is a semantic
tautology.
 

I.E. you admit to using flawed logic to lie.
For your statement to BE a tautology, the definition require that they don't apply to your HHH that answers, and thus you claims that HHH is correct, is an admitted LIE. (or proof of your totally stupidity).

Most everyone starts with the immutable assumption that I
must be incorrect and then looks for some excuse to justify
this assumption.
 

We don't "assume" you are incorrect, we can see your errors that you refuse to look at.
Things that are BY DEFINITION wrong, but you just lie to yourself about what the definitions ARE, because of your self-imposed ignorance of what the fields definitions actually are, so you make up your own, which is just one form of lying.