Sujet : Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 15. Aug 2024, 17:14:31
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <c0e5ee4d5b195b7f97a9dc1ed0cf50f62ab140e8@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Thu, 15 Aug 2024 07:59:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/15/2024 3:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 14.aug.2024 om 23:08 schreef olcott:
On 8/14/2024 3:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 14/08/2024 18:45, olcott wrote:
On 8/14/2024 11:31 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:42:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/14/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 13:30:08 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/12/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>
*DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its* *own
"return" instruction final halt state, thus never halts*
>
Which is only correct if HHH actuallly does a complete and
correct emulation, or the behavior DDD (but not the emulation
of DDD by HHH) will reach that return.
>
A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always been
a contradiction in terms.
HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of
DDD by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
final halt state.
That is not a meaningful prediction because a complete and
unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH never happens.
>
A complete emulation is not required to correctly predict that a
complete emulation would never halt.
What do we care about a complete simulation? HHH isn't doing one.
>
Please go read how Mike corrected you.
>
Lol, dude... I mentioned nothing about complete/incomplete
simulations.
*You corrected Joes most persistent error*
She made sure to ignore this correction.
>
But while we're here - a complete simulation of input D() would
clearly halt.
>
A complete simulation *by HHH* remains stuck in infinite recursion
until aborted.
It is aborted, so the infinite recursion is just a dream.
All simulating termination analyzers are required to predict what the
behavior would be when the emulation is unlimited (never aborted)
Also something that you consistently ignore is that HHH is not reporting
on its own behavior. HHH is only predicting whether or not an unlimited
emulation of DDD would reach the "return" instruction of DDD.
Which it would, because HHH aborts, both the one simulating DDD as well
as the one called by DDD.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
…