1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Overview of proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior

    From joes@21:1/5 to Can you actually reply to what I on Tue Aug 13 21:34:00 2024
    Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 15:43:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 8/13/2024 3:38 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:30:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD
    by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
    state.
    If let run, the HHH called by DDD will abort and return.

    H has never ever been required to do an unlimited emulation of a
    non-halting input. H has only ever been required to correctly predict
    what the behavior of a unlimited emulation would be.
    Which it doesn't fulfill.
    Can you actually reply to what I said?

    A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the semantics
    of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
    It's not about the individual steps, but their number. An incomplete or
    aborted simulation is necessarily incorrect.

    A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.
    Only if you fall into an infinite loop.

    Termination analyzers / halt deciders are only required to correctly
    predict the behavior of their inputs, thus the behavior of non-inputs is outside of their domain.
    Beside the point. The input is DDD which halts iff HHH aborts.

    restored:
    A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always been a
    contradiction in terms.
    It just doesn't halt, that's why HHH can't do it. And if HHH aborts, it
    becomes unnecessary. Whether it does can't depend on the simulation
    level - all H's abort or none.
    Any word on this?

    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Aug 13 22:29:46 2024
    On 8/13/24 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/13/2024 4:34 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 15:43:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 8/13/2024 3:38 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:30:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD >>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt >>>>> state.
    If let run, the HHH called by DDD will abort and return.

    H has never ever been required to do an unlimited emulation of a
    non-halting input. H has only ever been required to correctly predict >>>>> what the behavior of a unlimited emulation would be.
    Which it doesn't fulfill.
    Can you actually reply to what I said?

    A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the semantics
    of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
    It's not about the individual steps, but their number. An incomplete or
    aborted simulation is necessarily incorrect.


    *We can't move on to the next point until after you agree*
    A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
    the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
    (1) Yes you agree
    (2) No you want to be stuck in an infinite loop until you agree



    Nope, YOU are the one stuck in the infinite loop trying to prove a false statement.


    Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity, and that you are too stupid
    to see your stupidity, which is the worse kind of stupid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From joes@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 14 16:36:01 2024
    Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 17:11:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 8/13/2024 4:34 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 15:43:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 8/13/2024 3:38 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:30:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD >>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt >>>>> state.
    If let run, the HHH called by DDD will abort and return.

    H has never ever been required to do an unlimited emulation of a
    non-halting input. H has only ever been required to correctly
    predict what the behavior of a unlimited emulation would be.
    Which it doesn't fulfill.
    Can you actually reply to what I said?
    H is required to report on itself, by being nested in D. H itself aborts,
    so the D it returns to also halts.

    A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
    semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
    It's not about the individual steps, but their number. An incomplete or
    aborted simulation is necessarily incorrect.
    *We can't move on to the next point until after you agree*
    YOU can't just post your next step.

    A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the semantics
    of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
    An aborted simulation is never correct.

    (1) Yes you agree (2) No you want to be stuck in an infinite loop until
    you agree
    I will never agree. So you are stuck.

    --
    Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
    It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

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