Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 13. Aug 2024, 17:36:45
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v9g22t$3uffi$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/13/2024 11:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 13.aug.2024 om 17:25 schreef olcott:
On 8/13/2024 9:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 13.aug.2024 om 15:04 schreef olcott:
On 8/13/2024 5:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-13 01:43:49 +0000, olcott said:
>
We prove that the simulation is correct.
Then we prove that this simulation cannot possibly
reach its final halt state / ever stop running without being aborted.
The semantics of the x86 language conclusive proves this is true.
>
Thus when we measure the behavior specified by this finite
string by DDD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH it specifies
non-halting behavior.
>
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>
Input to HHH(DDD) is DDD. If there is any other input then the proof is
not interesting.
>
The behviour specified by DDD on the first page of the linked article
is halting if HHH(DDD) halts. Otherwise HHH is not interesting.
>
Any proof of the false statement that "the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
non-halting behaviour" is either uninteresting or unsound.
>
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
It is true that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot
possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
>
Contradiction in terminus.
A correct simulation is not possible.
>
*YOU JUST DON'T GET THIS*
A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language is stipulated to be correct.
 You don't get that you cannot stipulate that something is correct.
It is objectively incorrect to disagree with the semantics
of the x86 language when one is assessing whether or not
an emulation of N instructions of an input is correct or
incorrect.
If you can't agree to that anything else that you say is moot.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
13 Aug 24 * Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior29olcott
13 Aug 24 +- Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior1Python
13 Aug 24 +- Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior1Richard Damon
13 Aug 24 +* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior23Mikko
13 Aug 24 i`* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike22olcott
13 Aug 24 i +* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike15Fred. Zwarts
13 Aug 24 i i`* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point14olcott
13 Aug 24 i i +* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point12Fred. Zwarts
13 Aug 24 i i i`* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point11olcott
13 Aug 24 i i i +* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point9Fred. Zwarts
13 Aug 24 i i i i`* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point8olcott
13 Aug 24 i i i i +* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point6Fred. Zwarts
13 Aug 24 i i i i i`* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point5olcott
14 Aug 24 i i i i i +- Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point1Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i i i i i `* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point3Fred. Zwarts
14 Aug 24 i i i i i  `* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- in our head2olcott
14 Aug 24 i i i i i   `- Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- in our head1Fred. Zwarts
14 Aug 24 i i i i `- Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point1Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i i i `- Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point1Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i i `- Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point1Richard Damon
14 Aug 24 i `* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike6Mikko
14 Aug 24 i  `* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike5olcott
14 Aug 24 i   +- Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike1Fred. Zwarts
15 Aug 24 i   `* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike3Mikko
15 Aug 24 i    `* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike2olcott
16 Aug 24 i     `- Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior --- Mike1Mikko
13 Aug 24 `* Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior3olcott
14 Aug 24  +- Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior1Richard Damon
14 Aug 24  `- Re: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting behavior1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal