Sujet : Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 03. Aug 2024, 17:03:55
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v8lkdb$3h16a$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/3/2024 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/3/24 10:26 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/3/2024 9:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 03.aug.2024 om 15:50 schreef olcott:
On 8/3/2024 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 02.aug.2024 om 22:57 schreef olcott:
Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
>
>
Which proves that the simulation is incorrect.
>
When are you going to understand that you are not allowed
to disagree with the semantics of the x86 language?
>
>
>
I do not disagree.
When are you going to understand that it is a deviation of the semantics of the x86 language to skip instructions of a halting program,
>
HHH(DDD) simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) to repeat the process.
>
If it does this an infinite number of times the simulated DDD
never reaches its own return instruction.
>
If it does this a googolplex number of times the simulated DDD
never reaches its own return instruction.
Nope, the PARTIAL SIMULATION of DDD never reaches the return instruction.
For N = 0; while N <= googolplex; N++
N instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[N] never
reach their own "return" instruction final state.
∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never
reach their own "return" instruction final state.
Thus any HHH that takes a wild guess that DDD emulated
by itself never halts is always correct.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
…