Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 16. Aug 2024, 08:57:51
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v9mt9h$1bdeu$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott:
On 8/15/2024 1:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote:
On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:
On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:
On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>
A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,
That is what I said dufuss.
You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as
correct.
>
A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient
to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.
Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,
*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller*
how *HHH* returns
>
HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates
DDD
    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts
voila
HHH halts
>
You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts its
simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
earlier.  You know that, right?
>
Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical
reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort
the same.
>
>
It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
waiting forever.
Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would abort and halt.
>
Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong.
>
For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct.
>
 *Fred has the same incorrect views as joes*
*Here is where you agreed that Fred is wrong*
*when replying to joes*
 On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
 >> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
 >>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH
 >>>  returns to its caller*>>
 >>> (the first one doesn't even have a caller)
 >>> Use the above machine language instructions to show this.
 >> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
 >>    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated
 >>    HHH simulates DDD    second level
 >>      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
 >>    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference
 >>    DDD halts        voila
 >> HHH halts
 >
 > You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your
 > simulated HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above],
 > then the outer level H would have aborted its
 > identical simulation earlier.  You know that, right?
 > [It's what people have been discussing here endlessly
 > for the last few months! :) ]
 >
 > So your trace is impossible...
 >
 
It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very short of memory.)
I never said such a thing.
I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH had only one cycle to go. I never said that the simulated HHH reached it abort and halted.
In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach the abort and halt of the simulated HHH proves that the simulation is incomplete and incorrect, because a complete simulation (such as by HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt.
It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, or your memory is indeed very short.
Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from rebuttal mode, instead of ignoring it immediately.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
14 Aug 24 * Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point163olcott
14 Aug 24 +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point141Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point140olcott
14 Aug 24 i +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point45Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point44olcott
14 Aug 24 i i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point43Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i i  +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point32olcott
14 Aug 24 i i  i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point31Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i i  i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head30olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i  +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head28Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head27olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head20Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head19olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head18Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head17olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head16Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head11olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head10Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head9olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i  +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Fred. Zwarts
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head7Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head6olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i    +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i    `* Re: point by point --- in our head4joes
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i     `* Re: point by point --- in our head3olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i      +- Re: point by point --- in our head1joes
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i    i      `- Re: point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head4olcott
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head3Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    i      `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head2olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i    i       `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i i  i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head6Mikko
15 Aug 24 i i  i     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head5olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i      +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head3Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i  i      i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head2olcott
16 Aug 24 i i  i      i `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i  i      `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point --- in our head1Mikko
15 Aug 24 i i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point10Mikko
15 Aug 24 i i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point9olcott
16 Aug 24 i i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point8Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point7olcott
16 Aug 24 i i      `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point6Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i i       `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point5olcott
16 Aug 24 i i        +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point2joes
16 Aug 24 i i        i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1olcott
16 Aug 24 i i        +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1Mikko
16 Aug 24 i i        `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point94joes
14 Aug 24 i  +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point3olcott
14 Aug 24 i  i+- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1joes
14 Aug 24 i  i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1Fred. Zwarts
14 Aug 24 i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point90Mike Terry
14 Aug 24 i   +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point1olcott
15 Aug 24 i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point88joes
15 Aug 24 i    +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes85olcott
15 Aug 24 i    i+* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes74Fred. Zwarts
15 Aug 24 i    ii`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes73olcott
15 Aug 24 i    ii +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes1Fred. Zwarts
15 Aug 24 i    ii `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes71Mike Terry
15 Aug 24 i    ii  +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes2olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii  i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes1Fred. Zwarts
15 Aug 24 i    ii  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too68olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii   +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too2Mike Terry
16 Aug 24 i    ii   i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too1olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too65Fred. Zwarts
16 Aug 24 i    ii    +* Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too15olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii    i+* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too13Mike Terry
16 Aug 24 i    ii    ii`* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too12olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii    ii +- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1joes
16 Aug 24 i    ii    ii +- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i    ii    ii +- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1Fred. Zwarts
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii `* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too8Mike Terry
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  +* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too4Mike Terry
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  i`* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too3olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  i +- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1joes
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  i `- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii  `* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too3olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii   `* Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too2Fred. Zwarts
17 Aug 24 i    ii    ii    `- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii    i`- Re: Mike's correction of Joes correct Fred too1Fred. Zwarts
16 Aug 24 i    ii    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too49Mike Terry
16 Aug 24 i    ii     +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts16olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii     i+* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts14Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i    ii     ii`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts13olcott
16 Aug 24 i    ii     ii +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts8Richard Damon
16 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts7olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts6Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts5olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i   `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts4Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts3olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts2Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii i      `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts1olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii +- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts1Mikko
17 Aug 24 i    ii     ii `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts3joes
18 Aug 24 i    ii     ii  `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts2olcott
18 Aug 24 i    ii     ii   `- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts1Richard Damon
17 Aug 24 i    ii     i`- Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts1Fred. Zwarts
16 Aug 24 i    ii     `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too32Jeff Barnett
16 Aug 24 i    ii      +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too4olcott
17 Aug 24 i    ii      i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too3Mike Terry
17 Aug 24 i    ii      `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes and thus Fred too27Mike Terry
16 Aug 24 i    i`* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike correcting Joes10Richard Damon
15 Aug 24 i    `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point2Mike Terry
14 Aug 24 +* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point17Mikko
14 Aug 24 `* Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- point by point4Fred. Zwarts

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal