Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 12. Jun 2024, 21:46:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v4ctuq$1p0h1$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Op 12.jun.2024 om 21:20 schreef olcott:
On 6/12/2024 2:13 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 12.jun.2024 om 20:24 schreef olcott:
On 6/12/2024 1:19 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 12.jun.2024 om 16:47 schreef olcott:
>
There is no infinite nested simulation detected,
>
If I am wrong then a specific sequence of steps of D correctly
simulated by H where D terminates normally can be provided.
>
No infinite execution has been detected,
>
You seem to simply not understand that D correctly simulated
by H would eventually crash due to out-of-memory error.
>
>
Exactly. A correct H simulated by H does not exist. But, again, you misses the point. It was in the part that you omitted.
So, again:
>
No infinite execution has been detected, only a premature abortion.
 On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
 If that was true then you could provide every step of D correctly
simulated by H such that D simulated by H reaches its own simulated
"ret" instruction.
I said that each H is unable to hit its target, so how could it reach the "ret" instruction of D? Please, think before you reply.
Try again, it is not that difficult. Just take the time to read and think about it.
You seem to think that the archer is trying to reach infinity. But that is not what I say.
If D does not reach its "ret," it is exactly because it was aborted. The target of the simulation was just some steps too far for this H, but not at infinity.
It is like an archer who is asked to hit a target twice as far as his bow can reach. His bow reaches 50m and the target is at 100m. He misses.
Then he uses a new bow that reaches 100m, but now the target is at 200m. He is able to reach the old target, but again he misses the target for the new bow. He can continue, if the bow reaches further, the target is also further away. But note, the target is never at infinity.
Similarly, the target of the simulator is never at infinity, but always some steps further that the simulation goes. You can make a simulator that simulates further, which can reach the target of the old simulator, but it is unable to reach its own target. So, there is no infinite recursion, but the simulation always misses the target. The simulation is never able to simulate itself up to the end. It always aborts prematurely.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
8 Jun 24 * Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)61olcott
8 Jun 24 +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
8 Jun 24 i`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
8 Jun 24 +- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
9 Jun 24 `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)57Fred. Zwarts
9 Jun 24  +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
9 Jun 24  i`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
9 Jun 24  +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
9 Jun 24  i`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24  `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)52olcott
10 Jun 24   +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)48Fred. Zwarts
10 Jun 24   i+* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)3olcott
10 Jun 24   ii+- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   ii`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24   i`* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)44olcott
10 Jun 24   i +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)42Fred. Zwarts
10 Jun 24   i i`* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)41olcott
11 Jun 24   i i `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)40Fred. Zwarts
11 Jun 24   i i  `* D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten39olcott
12 Jun 24   i i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten38Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten37olcott
12 Jun 24   i i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten36Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten35olcott
12 Jun 24   i i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten34Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten33olcott
12 Jun 24   i i         `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten32Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i          `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten31olcott
13 Jun 24   i i           `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten30Fred. Zwarts
13 Jun 24   i i            `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten29olcott
13 Jun 24   i i             `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten28Fred. Zwarts
13 Jun 24   i i              `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten27olcott
14 Jun 24   i i               `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten26Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 24   i i                `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten25olcott
14 Jun 24   i i                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten24Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 24   i i                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten23olcott
14 Jun 24   i i                   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten22Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 24   i i                    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten21olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten20Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten19olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                       +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24   i i                       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten17Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten16olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                         +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24   i i                         `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten14Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                          `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten13olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                           +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24   i i                           `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten11Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                            `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten10olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                             +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
16 Jun 24   i i                             `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten8Fred. Zwarts
16 Jun 24   i i                              `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten7olcott
16 Jun 24   i i                               +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
16 Jun 24   i i                               `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten5Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 24   i i                                `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten4olcott
17 Jun 24   i i                                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten3Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 24   i i                                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten2olcott
17 Jun 24   i i                                   `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i `- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24   `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)3Richard Damon
10 Jun 24    `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
11 Jun 24     `- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal