XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: dbush.mobile@gmail.com
On 11/26/2025 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/26/2025 4:19 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-26, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/26/2025 3:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-26, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 11/26/2025 2:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 12:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with
>>>>>>>> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>>>>> or the semantics of the C programing language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Says the pitiful twit who has no meaningful response to results
>>>>>>> shown
>>>>>>> with code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not the one that came up with the jackass idea
>>>>>> of restarting a simulation after it has already
>>>>>> conclusively proved that it cannot possibly halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> That the continuation of the simulation reaches a final halting state
>>>>> conclusively proves otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> And Olcott has no idea how to fix it and is no longer
>>>> able to engage with tasks involving code.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>> {
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> And the continuation of the simulation
>>> at the "return" statement "proves"
>>> by deception that infinite loops halt.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are blabbing about, and neither do you.
>>
>
> We could simulate Infinite_Loop() until it
> proves that it cannot possibly stop running
> unless aborted, then abort it. Now to use
> your method we can "resume" the simulation
> at a different machine state.
False. We would resume the simulation of Infinite_Loop at the same
machine state (which doesn't include the simulator) and the resumption
would not halt.
In contract, we can resume the simulation of DD at the same machine
state (which again doesn't include the the simulator) and the resumption
has been shown to halt.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
