Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?

On 7/4/24 8:50 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/4/2024 5:38 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:21:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/3/2024 11:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:

>

Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is
knows that when HHH emulates the machine language of
Infinite_Loop,
Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these
emulations so that itself can terminate normally.

>
Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant.

>
This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.

>

Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be
irrelevant does not bring the discussion any further. Sipser
is not relevant, because that is about a correct simulation.
Your simulation is not correct.
>

If you disagree with this you are either dishonest or clueless
I no longer care which one.

>

DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated
HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.

>
HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon.

>
You are freaking thinking too damn narrow minded.
DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist which calls
this emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted
(which may be never).

Whatever HHH does, it does not run forever but aborts.
>
>

HHH halts on input DDD.
>
void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
}
>
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt.
>
>

That would be an error of the simulator, because it aborts its own
simulation too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would
return and

>
You dishonestly redefined the problem so that it has no correct
answer.

>
(Ignoring an distracting irrelevant hominem remark.)
>
If you think that "What time is a three story building?" must have a
correct answer, you are wrong.
Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly, you
are wrong.
>
         int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>
         int main()
         {
           return H(main, 0);
         }
>
You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it does not
return.
DDD is making it unnecessarily complex, but has the same problem.

>
main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.
>

HHH is unable to simulate main correctly, because it unable to simulate
itself correctly.
The 'unless phrase' is misleading, because we are talking about a H
*does* abort. Dreaming of one that does not abort, is irrelevant.
The correctly simulated main would stop, because the simulated H is
only one cycle away from its return when its simulation is aborted.

>
HHH is required to report on what would happen if HHH did not abort. HHH
is forbidden from getting its own self stuck in infinite execution.
Emulated instances of itself is not its actual self.

No. HHH is simulating itself, not a different function that does not
abort. All calls are instances of the same code with the same parameters.
They all do the same thing: aborting.
>

 HHH always meets its abort criteria first because it
always sees at least one fully execution trace of DDD
before the next inner one. It is stupidly incorrect
to think that HHH can wait on the next one.
 

But, since the emulation by HHH doesn't DEFINE the behavior of the input, but the x86 language does, the program being emulated continues past the point of being aborted and does exactly the same thing and sees exactly the same thing as the outer HHH saw, and then continues to show that DDD will halt.
Your problem is you fundamentally don't understand the terms you are using and confuse observation for fact.
The program HHH uses its emulation to observe PART of the behavior of DDD (the part it emulated) and then from that, by using FAULTY LOGIC concluded something that was not true.
The BEHAVIOR of the input is fully defined by its FULL representation (which includes ALL of the memory in that machine) and the definition that these bytes are to be interpreted by the rules of the x86 instruction set.
That means the behavior of the input is EXACTLY like what would happen when we run the program DDD, which has been shown to halt, since you say HHH(DDD) does return.
SO, just like the HHH you designed (apparently taling way more time then it should have) used incorrect logic on its observations, so do you, because you just don't understand the basics of the logic system you are working on (or perhaps ANY logic system from some of your other errors).