XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic

On 7/31/25 11:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/29/2025 11:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <[email protected]> wrote:

On 7/29/2025 9:35 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

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;
}

Anyone with a bachelor's degree in computer science
would understand the notion of multi-tasking. This
is not the sort of trivial detail that would be
forgotten.

Right, and would know that this problem isn't about multi-tasking.

The way that HHH does simulate an instance of DDD
and then an instance of itself simulating another
instance of DDD is cooperative multi-tasking.

But, you aren't looking at what actually happens, since you have DEFINED
that your HHH will abort its sub-process so it can return an answer, and
thus the undistrubed behavior of that sub-process isn't seen by HHH, but
is what happens when we run it

Universal Turing Machine (UTM) having the x86
language as its Machine description language. https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm

Which means an descirption of a program is *ALL* the code it uses, and
thus for DDD includes ALL the code for HHH and everything it calls.

It has to, as the UTM can only look at "its input" to run its
simulation, not what ever is in the memory it is running in.

HHH calls the x86utm to create a separate process
context with 16 virtual registers and a virtual
stack for DDD. HHH emulates DDD and an instance
of itself in this same process context.

Right, and the BEHAIVOR of that separete process, is what that process
will do if run and left undisturbed, which is to HALT, since that HHH
will abort its own subprocess and return 0 to DDD

That anyone would say this is impossible would
mean that their knowledge of computer science
is much less than anyone with a Bachelor's degree
in computer science.

The impossible part is to do it COMPLETELY.

You seem to think you can correctly count a jar with thousands of
pennies in it by taking out just a handful and counting them.

That is like saying there are only 3 licks to a totsie roll pop, because
you stopped licking at that point.

Sorry, you are just caught in your lie.

Since the problem statement is to decide on the behavior of the
specified program when it is run, if you fail to specify the program
correctly, then the error is YOURS, not the problem.

If you think you can't specify programs correctly, then you just agree
at the start that such a program can't be written.

Showing that you can make a program that answers about a specific other
program about a different question is just a strawman. We were not asked
if HHH coulde determine if it could simulate the input to its end, we
were asked if the direct execuition of the program will halt.

And trying to talk about anything else as that problem is just a lie,
something you have been doing for years.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)