XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl
Op 30.jul.2025 om 07:00 schreef olcott:
> On 7/29/2025 11:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> In comp.theory olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/29/2025 9:35 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/29/2025 5:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/29/2025 2:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>
>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>>>>> As usual incorrect claims without evidence.
>>>>>>>> Your dreams are no verified facts. HHH aborts before the simulation
>>>>>>>> would reach the final halt state in a finite number of steps, as
>>>>>>>> proven
>>>>>>>> by world-class simulators using exactly the same input. The
>>>>>>>> infinity is
>>>>>>>> only in your dreams.
>>
>>
>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) must simulate itself simulating DDD because DDD calls
>>>>>>> HHH(DDD)
>>
>>>>>>> HHH1(DDD) must NOT simulate itself simulating DDD because DDD
>>>>>>> DOES NOT
>>>>>>> CALL HHH1(DDD)
>>
>>>>>>> At this point I think that you are a fucking liar.
>>
>>>>>> As has been established elsewhere in this thread, you are no
>>>>>> position to
>>>>>> call anybody else here a liar. Glass house inhabitants, throwing
>>>>>> stones,
>>>>>> and all that.
>>
>>>>>> And you used to distinguish yourself from other cranks by sticking to
>>>>>> decorous language, and generally being courteous. Not any more.
>>>>>> That is
>>>>>> a most unwelcome change.
>>
>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>>> return;
>>>>> }
>>
>>>>> *That not one single person here*
>>>>> (besides those that I invited from the C groups)
>>>>> acknowledges that DDD simulated by HHH specifies
>>>>> recursive simulation
>>
>>>>> cannot be reasonably attributed to anything besides
>>>>> willful deception.
>>
>>>> Foul mouthed lying on your part. It can be attributed to your lack of
>>>> self awareness and lack of technical ability. Everybody here but
>>>> you can
>>>> see that.
>>
>>
>>> It is not any lack of technical ability that determines
>>> whether or not DDD correctly simulated by HHH can or
>>> cannot reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
>>
>> It is a lack of technical ability on your part which is unable to judge
>> whether such a correct simulation is possible. Everybody else sees that
>> it is not, so further questions about it are non-sensical.
>>
>
> void DDD()
> {
> HHH(DDD);
> return;
> }
>
> _DDD()
> [00002192] 55 push ebp
> [00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD
> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
> [0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
> [000021a2] 5d pop ebp
> [000021a3] c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>
> I have no idea why are are saying the something
> that is trivial is impossible.
>
> When HHH emulates: "push ebp" then HHH has correctly
> emulated the first instruction of DDD correctly.
Simulating a few instructions does not make the whole simulation
correct. In contrast, the failure to simulate a single instruction
correctly, makes the whole simulation incorrect.
In this case it is the failure to simulate the call instruction. The
simulation aborts at this point, where the semantics of the x86 language
requires the execution of the next instruction.
This premature abort, based on the incorrect assumption that a finite
recursion specifies non-halting, makes the whole simulation incorrect
and, what is worse, the conclusion of non-halting behaviour fails.
Further irrelevant claims without evidence ignored.
>
> Perhaps you have an ACM email address and don't
> know very much about programming?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
