XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 7/30/2025 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.
Simulating N instructions correctly does mean that
these N instructions were simulated correctly.
> 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.
My code conclusively proves that HHH does simulate
itself simulating DDD. That you do not understand
this code well enough to understand that is less
than no rebuttal at all.
> The
> simulation aborts at this point, where the semantics of the x86 language
> requires the execution of the next instruction.
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) It detects a non-terminating behavior pattern then it aborts its
simulation and returns 0,
(b) Its simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement then it
returns 1.
My code conclusively proves that HHH does simulate itself
simulating DDD until any sufficiently competent person can
correctly determine a repeating pattern that cannot possibly
reach its own "return" statement final halt state even with
an infinite simulation.
That you do not understand this code well enough to
understand that is less than no rebuttal at all.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
When it does detect this pattern then it kills the
whole DDD process so that there is no stack unwinding.
> 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.
>
HHH uses exactly same process on this function.
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
Infinite_Recursion();
return;
}
as it does this function.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
HHH has no idea that DDD is calling itself.
HHH just sees that DDD is calling the same function
with the same parameter twice in sequence, just like
Infinite_Recursion().
> Further irrelevant claims without evidence ignored.
>
>>
>> Perhaps you have an ACM email address and don't
>> know very much about programming?
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
