Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #108814 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-07-12 09:56 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-08-02 09:32 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 214 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 09:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-12 22:52 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-12 18:56 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 18:19 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-12 19:41 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-12 22:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-12 23:48 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-13 08:48 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 06:53 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-13 13:11 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 09:15 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-13 10:15 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 06:39 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-13 14:20 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 08:04 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 09:15 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 08:27 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 10:14 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 09:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 10:48 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 10:15 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 11:25 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 10:34 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 12:05 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 11:19 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 12:31 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 11:43 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is *IN*Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 13:20 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is *IN*Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 13:22 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is *IN*Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 14:37 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-13 13:24 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 08:34 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 10:14 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-13 14:21 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 09:31 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 10:45 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-13 22:40 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 17:47 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-13 23:26 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 18:33 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 19:46 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-14 08:29 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 09:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-14 14:22 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-15 00:20 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 19:30 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is IN*Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-14 21:20 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-15 08:49 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 07:22 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-15 21:12 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-15 22:18 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-16 10:20 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-16 10:57 -0500
Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-16 21:11 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-17 09:48 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-17 08:02 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-17 15:35 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-17 08:43 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-17 16:17 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-17 17:18 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-17 13:13 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-17 20:29 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-17 15:40 -0500
Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is inCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-17 19:56 -0400
Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is inCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-17 19:56 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-18 11:03 +0300
Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is inCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-17 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-18 11:00 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-18 09:08 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-18 16:16 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-19 10:35 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-19 09:04 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-19 10:42 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-07-15 04:02 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 22:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-15 10:35 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 07:39 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-15 14:02 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-15 21:15 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-15 22:18 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-15 08:59 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 07:23 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-15 14:04 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 10:52 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-15 21:21 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-15 20:58 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 16:03 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-15 22:18 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-16 08:23 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-16 08:54 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-16 18:06 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-17 10:02 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-19 10:42 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-19 09:08 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-20 11:21 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-20 08:11 -0500
Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-20 09:22 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-21 12:34 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-21 08:34 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-21 14:55 +0000
Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-21 13:52 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-22 10:57 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-22 08:46 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-23 09:32 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-23 08:31 -0500
Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-23 22:15 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-24 10:52 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting --- last chance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-24 08:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting --- last chance "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-24 20:34 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting --- proved to be a liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-24 14:27 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting --- proved to be a liar "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-25 09:47 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-24 11:57 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-24 08:33 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-26 11:45 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-26 09:08 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-27 10:21 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-27 09:08 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-28 11:02 +0300
embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-29 11:16 -0500
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-29 20:08 +0000
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-29 15:16 -0500
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-30 09:37 +0300
embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ computes the mapping from its input to Ĥ.qn olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-30 09:16 -0500
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ computes the mapping from its input to Ĥ.qn Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-31 10:32 +0300
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ computes the mapping from its input to Ĥ.qn olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-31 12:27 -0500
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ computes the mapping from its input to Ĥ.qn Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-01 10:44 +0300
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ computes the mapping from its input to Ĥ.qn olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-08-01 06:49 -0500
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ computes the mapping from its input to Ĥ.qn joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-08-01 12:17 +0000
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ computes the mapping from its input to Ĥ.qn --- black swan olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-08-01 07:54 -0500
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ computes the mapping from its input to Ĥ.qn Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-02 09:28 +0300
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ computes the mapping from its input to Ĥ.qn olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-08-02 07:47 -0500
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ incorrectly computes the mapping from its input to Ĥ.qn Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-08-02 10:41 -0400
Re: embedded_H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ computes the mapping from its input to Ĥ.qn Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-03 11:00 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-07-25 04:29 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-25 08:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-07-25 16:02 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-25 09:35 -0500
Re: not identical deciders joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-25 14:24 +0000
Re: not identical deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-25 09:39 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-25 16:27 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-07-25 17:06 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-25 13:45 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-26 10:00 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-07-25 22:03 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-25 19:53 -0500
Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken claims Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-25 21:14 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-07-26 04:35 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-25 23:25 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-26 08:50 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-26 08:54 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-26 16:02 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-26 09:19 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-26 17:36 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-26 15:13 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-26 10:20 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-26 19:20 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken rebuttal Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-26 07:40 -0400
Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken logic Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-25 19:35 -0400
Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken emulation Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-25 19:35 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-16 20:27 +0200
Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-16 21:10 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-15 22:18 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-15 22:18 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-07-15 17:03 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 --- key point needing review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 11:23 -0500
Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 --- key point needing review Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-15 22:19 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is *IN*Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-15 07:09 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is *IN*Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 07:43 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is *IN*Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-15 22:17 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-15 11:09 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 08:39 -0500
Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-15 22:19 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-16 10:47 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-16 13:10 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-16 20:37 +0000
Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-16 21:10 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 19:32 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-14 11:58 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 09:49 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-14 14:22 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-15 11:15 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 08:41 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-15 22:17 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-16 11:05 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 09:15 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 08:30 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-13 10:14 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-13 13:17 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-13 11:20 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-13 06:37 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-14 13:09 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-14 09:50 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-14 14:22 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-15 11:17 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-15 08:43 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-15 21:09 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-15 20:49 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-15 22:17 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-16 10:57 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-16 13:18 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-16 20:32 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-16 20:43 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-17 09:01 +0200
Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INcorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-16 21:10 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-17 09:52 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-17 08:04 -0500
Re: DDD incorrectly emulated by HHH is incorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-17 19:56 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-18 11:13 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-31 10:36 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-31 12:28 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-08-01 07:28 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-01 10:49 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-08-01 06:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-08-02 09:32 +0300
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 08:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <aa7643b6d8c46d2c4dd5ef92ae3650afe114adbb@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108954 |
Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 15/07/2024 01:20, joes wrote: >>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 09:00:55 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 7/14/2024 3:29 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:33:53 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 7/13/2024 6:26 PM, joes wrote: >>>> [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call >>>> HHH(DDD) Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation >>>> Stopped >>> How is this detected? >> PO seems not to want to answer you, as I notice you've asked this >> question more than once and PO dodges a direct response, so I'll try. >> (Alternatively, PO has provided a link to his source code in the past, >> so if you can find that link you can just look the answer yourself - >> the functions are all in his halt7.c file, which is compiled but not >> linked, then the obj file is interpreted within his x86utm.exe (source >> also given in the link. The link might not reflect his current code??) Thank you. I didn't bother digging through their code, and they refused to give the abortion criterion. >> HHH [outer HHH only!] examines a global trace table of simulated >> instruction (from all simulation levels merged together). The >> particular message "Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped" >> seems to be issued when: >> - last instruction is a CALL - working backwards through the merged >> trace table, another CALL is encountered - ..which is issued at the >> same address - ..and is calling to the same address - ..and no >> "conditional branch" instructions occur in the trace table >> between the two call instructions >> >> KEY TO NOT BEING MISLED BY THE ABOVE: >> >> 0. The "Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped" message is just >> a printf. >> It does not prove that /actual/ infinite recursion was detected - >> on the contrary, >> all here but PO realise that the recursion detected is just >> finite recursion. >> >> 1. The trace table being examined is NOT an x86 processor trace - it is >> a "merged simulation trace" containing entries for ALL SIMULATION >> LEVELS. >> So the two CALL instructions are not referring to one single x86 >> processor. > When emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD) the outer HHH emulates itself emulating > DDD. > I think that joes does not understand these things. >> Typically, the last call instruction is from a deeper nested >> simulation than the earlier detected call instruction. The outer >> simulations are all >> still running, but do not appear in the trace table or logs >> presented by PO due to the next note. >> >> 2. The searched trace table is filtered to only contain instructions >> within the C function D/DD/DDD/.. !! >> YES, YOU READ THAT RIGHT! ALL CODE IN HHH IS TOTALLY IGNORED, >> INCLUDING >> THE CONDITIONAL BRANCH INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE TESTING THE VERY >> ABORT TESTS THAT CAUSE OUTER HHH TO ABORT. >> >> 3. Inner HHH's do not perform the same tests as above, because they >> inspect a global >> variable which tells them they are inner HHH's. Yeah, that means >> the simulation >> is completely broken logically... [but... the outer HHH will >> abort first, so >> PO might argue the outcome will be the same, even though >> logically it is broken...] Ah, and here I believed them when they said they had rewritten it. >> > Is it also triggered when calling a function in a loop? >> Not sure what you mean. Calling a function in a loop ends if the loop >> ends, right? What loop are you thinking of? >> Anyhow, provided the call instructions are physically located in >> function D() [i.e. not H() or something called from H] I guess it would >> match. But the C function D has only one call instruction, which isn't >> in a loop! I wondered about just calling the same function repeatedly with the same parameters (on the same simulation level). > Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of > simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies non-halting > behavior or it would never need to be aborted. It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be aborted. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 07:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v734ct$mjis$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108971 |
On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote: > Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> On 15/07/2024 01:20, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 09:00:55 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 7/14/2024 3:29 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Sat, 13 Jul 2024 18:33:53 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/13/2024 6:26 PM, joes wrote: > >>>>> [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call >>>>> HHH(DDD) Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation >>>>> Stopped >>>> How is this detected? >>> PO seems not to want to answer you, as I notice you've asked this >>> question more than once and PO dodges a direct response, so I'll try. >>> (Alternatively, PO has provided a link to his source code in the past, >>> so if you can find that link you can just look the answer yourself - >>> the functions are all in his halt7.c file, which is compiled but not >>> linked, then the obj file is interpreted within his x86utm.exe (source >>> also given in the link. The link might not reflect his current code??) > Thank you. I didn't bother digging through their code, and they refused > to give the abortion criterion. > >>> HHH [outer HHH only!] examines a global trace table of simulated >>> instruction (from all simulation levels merged together). The >>> particular message "Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped" >>> seems to be issued when: >>> - last instruction is a CALL - working backwards through the merged >>> trace table, another CALL is encountered - ..which is issued at the >>> same address - ..and is calling to the same address - ..and no >>> "conditional branch" instructions occur in the trace table >>> between the two call instructions >>> >>> KEY TO NOT BEING MISLED BY THE ABOVE: >>> >>> 0. The "Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped" message is just >>> a printf. >>> It does not prove that /actual/ infinite recursion was detected - >>> on the contrary, >>> all here but PO realise that the recursion detected is just >>> finite recursion. >>> >>> 1. The trace table being examined is NOT an x86 processor trace - it is >>> a "merged simulation trace" containing entries for ALL SIMULATION >>> LEVELS. >>> So the two CALL instructions are not referring to one single x86 >>> processor. >> When emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD) the outer HHH emulates itself emulating >> DDD. >> I think that joes does not understand these things. > >>> Typically, the last call instruction is from a deeper nested >>> simulation than the earlier detected call instruction. The outer >>> simulations are all >>> still running, but do not appear in the trace table or logs >>> presented by PO due to the next note. >>> >>> 2. The searched trace table is filtered to only contain instructions >>> within the C function D/DD/DDD/.. !! >>> YES, YOU READ THAT RIGHT! ALL CODE IN HHH IS TOTALLY IGNORED, >>> INCLUDING >>> THE CONDITIONAL BRANCH INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE TESTING THE VERY >>> ABORT TESTS THAT CAUSE OUTER HHH TO ABORT. >>> >>> 3. Inner HHH's do not perform the same tests as above, because they >>> inspect a global >>> variable which tells them they are inner HHH's. Yeah, that means >>> the simulation >>> is completely broken logically... [but... the outer HHH will >>> abort first, so >>> PO might argue the outcome will be the same, even though >>> logically it is broken...] > Ah, and here I believed them when they said they had rewritten it. > >>> > Is it also triggered when calling a function in a loop? >>> Not sure what you mean. Calling a function in a loop ends if the loop >>> ends, right? What loop are you thinking of? >>> Anyhow, provided the call instructions are physically located in >>> function D() [i.e. not H() or something called from H] I guess it would >>> match. But the C function D has only one call instruction, which isn't >>> in a loop! > I wondered about just calling the same function repeatedly with the same > parameters (on the same simulation level). > >> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of >> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies non-halting >> behavior or it would never need to be aborted. > It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be aborted. > At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 14:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <056325e336f81a50f4fb9e60f90934eaac823d22@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108977 |
Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of >>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies non-halting >>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted. >> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be aborted. > At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted Because it hadn't halted yet? Why should it have halted, it will do so in the future. Do you place arbitrary lifetime limits on all programs? -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 10:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v73gk2$obtd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108997 |
On 7/15/2024 9:04 AM, joes wrote: > Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > >>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of >>>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies non-halting >>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted. >>> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be aborted. >> At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted > Because it hadn't halted yet? Because HHH has seen a repeating state that proves that DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever stop running unless aborted. That you fail to understand a that there is a repeating state or fail to understand that a repeating state proves this is less than no rebuttal at all. > Why should it have halted, it will do so > in the future. Do you place arbitrary lifetime limits on all programs? > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 21:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v73ssl$qkp2$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109000 |
Op 15.jul.2024 om 17:52 schreef olcott:
> On 7/15/2024 9:04 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>
>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of
>>>>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies non-halting
>>>>> behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be aborted.
>>> At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted
>> Because it hadn't halted yet?
>
> Because HHH has seen a repeating state that proves that DDD
> correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever stop running
> unless aborted.
A repeated state is not an infinitely repeated state. The problem is
that HHH does not keep track of the full state, so it thinks that the
same state was repeated, but it is not the exact same state.
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
HHH decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion,
which is incorrect.
This is exactly what makes this simulation incorrect.
>
> That you fail to understand a that there is a repeating state
> or fail to understand that a repeating state proves this is
> less than no rebuttal at all.
You fail to see that not every recursion is an infinite recursion.
>
>> Why should it have halted, it will do so
>> in the future. Do you place arbitrary lifetime limits on all programs?
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 20:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e2958e7ea04d53590c79b53bfb4bc9dff468772b@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #109000 |
Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:52:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/15/2024 9:04 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> >>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of >>>>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies >>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted. >>>> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be aborted. >>> At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted >> Because it hadn't halted yet? > Because HHH has seen a repeating state that proves that DDD correctly > emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever stop running unless aborted. Which state is it that repeats forever? We know that HHH will abort. What does HHH do with Fred's Finite_Recursion()? > That you fail to understand a that there is a repeating state or fail to > understand that a repeating state proves this is less than no rebuttal > at all. The state is in fact different in some internal decision logic that waits for a repetition. You know this better than me. Can you point me to where HHH looks for the stored state that may be repeated? >> Why should it have halted, it will do so in the future. Do you place >> arbitrary lifetime limits on all programs? -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 16:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v742r2$s48s$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109013 |
On 7/15/2024 3:58 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:52:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/15/2024 9:04 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of
>>>>>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
>>>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be aborted.
>>>> At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted
>>> Because it hadn't halted yet?
>> Because HHH has seen a repeating state that proves that DDD correctly
>> emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever stop running unless aborted.
> Which state is it that repeats forever?
void Infinite_Loop()
{
HERE: goto HERE;
}
*It had never been which state DOES repeat forever*
*It has always been which state WOULD repeat forever if not aborted*
Infinite_Loop() doesn't even repeat forever because it is aborted.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-15 22:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 |
| Message-ID | <84724f1239855c3407441aa0c8cf0e350fb98890@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #109014 |
On 7/15/24 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/15/2024 3:58 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:52:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/15/2024 9:04 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of
>>>>>>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
>>>>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be aborted.
>>>>> At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted
>>>> Because it hadn't halted yet?
>>> Because HHH has seen a repeating state that proves that DDD correctly
>>> emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever stop running unless aborted.
>
>> Which state is it that repeats forever?
>
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> *It had never been which state DOES repeat forever*
>
> *It has always been which state WOULD repeat forever if not aborted*
>
> Infinite_Loop() doesn't even repeat forever because it is aborted.
>
Which is a diffferent case.
There there IS actual repeating state, so a proof can be built on the
non-halting of the emulated program from a sufficient but partial emulation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-16 08:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <210383b2ee318f68a96d94aec314ee8b93f79b7f@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #109014 |
Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:03:30 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/15/2024 3:58 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:52:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/15/2024 9:04 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of >>>>>>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies >>>>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted. >>>>>> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be aborted. >>>>> At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted >>>> Because it hadn't halted yet? >>> Because HHH has seen a repeating state that proves that DDD correctly >>> emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever stop running unless aborted. >> Which state is it that repeats forever? > *It had never been which state DOES repeat forever* > *It has always been which state WOULD repeat forever if not aborted* Well then, which state of HHH would repeat forever? > Infinite_Loop() doesn't even repeat forever because it is aborted. By itself it does. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-16 08:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v75u22$19j7l$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109051 |
On 7/16/2024 3:23 AM, joes wrote: > Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:03:30 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 7/15/2024 3:58 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:52:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 7/15/2024 9:04 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of >>>>>>>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies >>>>>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted. >>>>>>> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be aborted. >>>>>> At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted >>>>> Because it hadn't halted yet? >>>> Because HHH has seen a repeating state that proves that DDD correctly >>>> emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever stop running unless aborted. >>> Which state is it that repeats forever? >> *It had never been which state DOES repeat forever* >> *It has always been which state WOULD repeat forever if not aborted* > Well then, which state of HHH would repeat forever? > *You still have it wrong*. It is not "which state of HHH would repeat forever?" It is: Which state of HHH would repeat forever if not aborted? >> Infinite_Loop() doesn't even repeat forever because it is aborted. > By itself it does. > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-16 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fde630817c49562bc765bdbc98e16a1582bcad53@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #109060 |
Am Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:54:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/16/2024 3:23 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:03:30 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/15/2024 3:58 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:52:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 7/15/2024 9:04 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of >>>>>>>>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies >>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted. >>>>>>>> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be >>>>>>>> aborted. >>>>>>> At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted >>>>>> Because it hadn't halted yet? >>>>> Because HHH has seen a repeating state that proves that DDD >>>>> correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever stop running unless >>>>> aborted. >>>> Which state is it that repeats forever? >>> *It had never been which state DOES repeat forever* >>> *It has always been which state WOULD repeat forever if not aborted* >> Well then, which state of HHH would repeat forever? > It is not "which state of HHH would repeat forever?" > It is: Which state of HHH would repeat forever if not aborted? Those two are the same, but different to what you said above. HHH does not repeat forever because it makes sure to stop simulating anything that does. >>> Infinite_Loop() doesn't even repeat forever because it is aborted. >> By itself it does. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-17 10:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v78mda$1smtm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109071 |
On 7/16/2024 1:06 PM, joes wrote: > Am Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:54:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 7/16/2024 3:23 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:03:30 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 7/15/2024 3:58 PM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:52:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 7/15/2024 9:04 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of >>>>>>>>>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies >>>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted. >>>>>>>>> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be >>>>>>>>> aborted. >>>>>>>> At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted >>>>>>> Because it hadn't halted yet? >>>>>> Because HHH has seen a repeating state that proves that DDD >>>>>> correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever stop running unless >>>>>> aborted. >>>>> Which state is it that repeats forever? >>>> *It had never been which state DOES repeat forever* >>>> *It has always been which state WOULD repeat forever if not aborted* >>> Well then, which state of HHH would repeat forever? >> It is not "which state of HHH would repeat forever?" >> It is: Which state of HHH would repeat forever if not aborted? > Those two are the same, but different to what you said above. > HHH does not repeat forever because it makes sure to stop simulating > anything that does. > I proved that they are not the same in the part that you skipped. >>>> Infinite_Loop() doesn't even repeat forever because it is aborted. >>> By itself it does. > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-19 10:42 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v7d5cl$2t3ja$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109138 |
On 2024-07-17 15:02:01 +0000, olcott said: > On 7/16/2024 1:06 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:54:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 7/16/2024 3:23 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:03:30 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:58 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:52:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 9:04 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of >>>>>>>>>>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies >>>>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted. >>>>>>>>>> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be >>>>>>>>>> aborted. >>>>>>>>> At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted >>>>>>>> Because it hadn't halted yet? >>>>>>> Because HHH has seen a repeating state that proves that DDD >>>>>>> correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever stop running unless >>>>>>> aborted. >>>>>> Which state is it that repeats forever? >>>>> *It had never been which state DOES repeat forever* >>>>> *It has always been which state WOULD repeat forever if not aborted* >>>> Well then, which state of HHH would repeat forever? >>> It is not "which state of HHH would repeat forever?" >>> It is: Which state of HHH would repeat forever if not aborted? > >> Those two are the same, but different to what you said above. >> HHH does not repeat forever because it makes sure to stop simulating >> anything that does. >> > > I proved that they are not the same in the part that > you skipped. Wat makes you think any part was skipped? You have not presented any proof in any part, skipped or not. >>>>> Infinite_Loop() doesn't even repeat forever because it is aborted. >>>> By itself it does. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-19 09:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v7ds0o$30pvh$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109205 |
On 7/19/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-07-17 15:02:01 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 7/16/2024 1:06 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:54:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 7/16/2024 3:23 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:03:30 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:58 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:52:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 9:04 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non >>>>>>>>>>>> termination of >>>>>>>>>>>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies >>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted. >>>>>>>>>>> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be >>>>>>>>>>> aborted. >>>>>>>>>> At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted >>>>>>>>> Because it hadn't halted yet? >>>>>>>> Because HHH has seen a repeating state that proves that DDD >>>>>>>> correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever stop running unless >>>>>>>> aborted. >>>>>>> Which state is it that repeats forever? >>>>>> *It had never been which state DOES repeat forever* >>>>>> *It has always been which state WOULD repeat forever if not aborted* >>>>> Well then, which state of HHH would repeat forever? >>>> It is not "which state of HHH would repeat forever?" >>>> It is: Which state of HHH would repeat forever if not aborted? >> >>> Those two are the same, but different to what you said above. >>> HHH does not repeat forever because it makes sure to stop simulating >>> anything that does. >>> >> >> I proved that they are not the same in the part that >> you skipped. > > Wat makes you think any part was skipped? > You skipped the part at the bottom. Infinite_Loop() repeats until aborted. When we use your incorrect reasoning we would conclude that Infinite_Loop() is not an infinite loop because it only repeats until aborted and is aborted. > You have not presented any proof in any part, skipped or not. > >>>>>> Infinite_Loop() doesn't even repeat forever because it is aborted. >>>>> By itself it does. > > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-20 11:21 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v7fs29$3f4g7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109215 |
On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said: > On 7/19/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-07-17 15:02:01 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 7/16/2024 1:06 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:54:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 7/16/2024 3:23 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:03:30 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:58 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:52:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 9:04 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:23:57 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 3:59 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 14 Jul 2024 22:35:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 10:02 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted. >>>>>>>>>>>> It's just that the input HHH halts and does not need to be >>>>>>>>>>>> aborted. >>>>>>>>>>> At the point that it is aborted it did need to be aborted >>>>>>>>>> Because it hadn't halted yet? >>>>>>>>> Because HHH has seen a repeating state that proves that DDD >>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly ever stop running unless >>>>>>>>> aborted. >>>>>>>> Which state is it that repeats forever? >>>>>>> *It had never been which state DOES repeat forever* >>>>>>> *It has always been which state WOULD repeat forever if not aborted* >>>>>> Well then, which state of HHH would repeat forever? >>>>> It is not "which state of HHH would repeat forever?" >>>>> It is: Which state of HHH would repeat forever if not aborted? >>> >>>> Those two are the same, but different to what you said above. >>>> HHH does not repeat forever because it makes sure to stop simulating >>>> anything that does. >>>> >>> >>> I proved that they are not the same in the part that >>> you skipped. >> >> Wat makes you think any part was skipped? > > You skipped the part at the bottom. So you just say so wothout any reason to say so? There is no proof at the bottom of <v75u22$19j7l$4@dont-email.me>. > Infinite_Loop() repeats until aborted. There is no Infinite_Loopn at the bottom of <v75u22$19j7l$4@dont-email.me>. Besides it is none of the HHH or DDD, so not relevant to my comment. > When we use your incorrect reasoning we would conclude > that Infinite_Loop() is not an infinite loop because it > only repeats until aborted and is aborted. You and your HHH can reason or at least conclude correctly about Infinite_Loop but not about DDD. Possibly because it prefers to say "no", which is correct about Infinte_loop but not about DDD. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-20 08:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v7gd17$3hlc2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109244 |
On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> When we use your incorrect reasoning we would conclude
>> that Infinite_Loop() is not an infinite loop because it
>> only repeats until aborted and is aborted.
>
> You and your HHH can reason or at least conclude correctly about
> Infinite_Loop but not about DDD. Possibly because it prefers to
> say "no", which is correct about Infinte_loop but not about DDD.
>
*Because this is true I don't understand how you are not simply lying*
int main
{
DDD();
}
Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input
or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-20 09:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2 |
| Message-ID | <872f3aae5310fe9a6d1a7256d3b8fd90a2c99a00@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #109260 |
On 7/20/24 9:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> When we use your incorrect reasoning we would conclude
>>> that Infinite_Loop() is not an infinite loop because it
>>> only repeats until aborted and is aborted.
>>
>> You and your HHH can reason or at least conclude correctly about
>> Infinite_Loop but not about DDD. Possibly because it prefers to
>> say "no", which is correct about Infinte_loop but not about DDD.
>>
>
> *Because this is true I don't understand how you are not simply lying*
> int main
> {
> DDD();
> }
>
> Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input
> or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running.
>
>
Becaue YOU are the one that is LYING.
The fact that DDD calls an HHH(DDD) That DOES ABORT its simulation of
its copy of DDD and returns, means that DDD returns.
You don't get to play the shell game and try to change HHH to the OTHER
program that creates ANOTHER input for DDD. Since you are claiming that
the HHH(DDD) called by main correctly answers by returning 0, we need to
look at THAT DDD, which calls THAT HHH and not any other.
You attemps at argument to bring in something that isn't just shows that
your whole logic system is based on tryng to LIE, and thus isn't really
a valid logic system. It also shows that you have no understanding about
how programs (or logic) actually work.
Thus anyone with a bit of intelegence will see that you idea need to be
avoided.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-21 12:34 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v7ikn4$1jv5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109260 |
On 2024-07-20 13:11:03 +0000, olcott said:
> On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> When we use your incorrect reasoning we would conclude
>>> that Infinite_Loop() is not an infinite loop because it
>>> only repeats until aborted and is aborted.
>>
>> You and your HHH can reason or at least conclude correctly about
>> Infinite_Loop but not about DDD. Possibly because it prefers to
>> say "no", which is correct about Infinte_loop but not about DDD.
>>
>
> *Because this is true I don't understand how you are not simply lying*
> int main
> {
> DDD();
> }
>
> Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input
> or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running.
You are the lying one.
If HHH(DDD) abrots its simulation and returns true it is correct as a
halt decider for DDD really halts.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-21 08:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v7j2pg$3o7r$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #109340 |
On 7/21/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-20 13:11:03 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> When we use your incorrect reasoning we would conclude
>>>> that Infinite_Loop() is not an infinite loop because it
>>>> only repeats until aborted and is aborted.
>>>
>>> You and your HHH can reason or at least conclude correctly about
>>> Infinite_Loop but not about DDD. Possibly because it prefers to
>>> say "no", which is correct about Infinte_loop but not about DDD.
>>>
>>
>> *Because this is true I don't understand how you are not simply lying*
>> int main
>> {
>> DDD();
>> }
>>
>> Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input
>> or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running.
>
> You are the lying one.
>
> If HHH(DDD) abrots its simulation and returns true it is correct as a
> halt decider for DDD really halts.
>
(b) We know that a decider is not allowed to report on the behavior
computation that itself is contained within. Deciders only take finite
string inputs. They do not take executing processes as inputs. Thus HHH
is not allowed to report on the behavior of this int main() { DDD(); }.
Even the Linz proof makes this same mistake
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Although embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly correctly report on
its own behavior because its input does the opposite of whatever
it reports embedded_H is only allowed to report on the behavior
that its input specifies.
Turing machines never take actual Turing machines as inputs.
They only take finite strings as inputs and an actual executing
Turing machine is not itself a finite string.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
Since we ourselves can directly see that UTM based embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
must abort the simulation of its input otherwise this input would
never stop running we know that the criteria have been met.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-21 14:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <944888d174edebc9353da8ebe29489295a0dad06@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #109351 |
Am Sun, 21 Jul 2024 08:34:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/21/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-20 13:11:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>> On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:
>> If HHH(DDD) abrots its simulation and returns true it is correct as a
>> halt decider for DDD really halts.
> (b) We know that a decider is not allowed to report on the behavior
> computation that itself is contained within. Deciders only take finite
> string inputs. They do not take executing processes as inputs. Thus HHH
> is not allowed to report on the behavior of this int main() { DDD(); }.
Its input just happens to be the same as enclosing computation.
> Although embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot possibly correctly report on its own
> behavior because its input does the opposite of whatever it reports
> embedded_H is only allowed to report on the behavior that its input
> specifies.
Which is the opposite.
> Turing machines never take actual Turing machines as inputs.
> They only take finite strings as inputs and an actual executing Turing
> machine is not itself a finite string.
Trivial.
> Since we ourselves can directly see that UTM based embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
> must abort the simulation of its input otherwise this input would never
> stop running we know that the criteria have been met.
I see that the input halts.
--
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web