Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 19:03:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <adab42d299905f4219330596cccb5184f5e09597@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v5ght9$21jrt$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5h558$24jbd$7@dont-email.me> <v5jcas$2m18t$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5k7ju$2qsdr$5@dont-email.me> <v5mcvo$1cgj0$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5mklg$3cibm$7@dont-email.me> <v5mo8a$1d3t3$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5mqge$3e4fd$2@dont-email.me> <v5msjt$1d3t3$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v5mtba$3elj0$1@dont-email.me> <v5n2ah$1d3t3$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5n2sk$3fm1k$1@dont-email.me> <v5po6i$1h5u1$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5pp9m$2jk8$1@dont-email.me> <v5rcrh$fkks$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5s44b$jvgt$2@dont-email.me> <v5tp2t$vsqr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5u97g$12udb$6@dont-email.me> <v5vi62$1oanb$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5vljj$1b0k9$3@dont-email.me> <v5vocu$1oanb$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5vp03$1fbi8$1@dont-email.me> <v5vpht$1oana$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v5vrac$1fg22$2@dont-email.me> <v5vrnq$1oana$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5vsff$1fqfa$2@dont-email.me>
 <e9c681b90a30f1c1c0b14c970675c5d6b104f535@i2pn2.org>
 <v60se2$1kr1q$5@dont-email.me>
 <04db95a103cfbcb76bd6082752ed89932cfce5d5@i2pn2.org>
 <v620nf$1qutj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 23:03:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1952763"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v620nf$1qutj$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 10081
Lines: 207

On 7/2/24 6:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/2/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/2/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2024 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/1/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/1/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/1/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 3:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:20 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot possibly return, because HHH aborts itself one 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cycle too early, showing that the emulation is incorrect. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that is over your head, try to learn how x86 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> CAN'T BE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A "Correct Emulation" is one that produces the same result 
>>>>>>>>>>>> as the program at the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which can only possibly occur be disregarding the semantics
>>>>>>>>>>> of the x86 language. Liars would do that ignoramuses would do
>>>>>>>>>>> that. Everyone with the equivalent of a BSCS would know that
>>>>>>>>>>> what I said is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say that? That is EXACTLY the definition of Correct 
>>>>>>>>>> Emulation. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And denying definitions is just lying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It may seem that way when you don't bother to pay
>>>>>>> attention that this definition is contradicted
>>>>>>> by verified facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHAT "Verified facts".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THe fact that DDD will halt since your HHH(DDD) retuns?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indoctrination will cause this. The only cure is
>>>>>>> correct reasoning by assuming that everything that
>>>>>>> anyone ever told you about anything is possibly
>>>>>>> false until conclusively proven otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, but failure to follow the defined rules gets you kick out of 
>>>>>> the club.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If everyone always did this then Nazi propaganda
>>>>>>> could not possibly have any chance of success.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But THEY Lied, and to could be shown so,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just like your statements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
>>>>>>>>> that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, 
>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
>>>>>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT
>>>>>>>>> SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT
>>>>>>>>> SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, DDD does halt if HHH is a decider and HHH(DDD) returns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is the same nutty bullshit as Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
>>>>>>> theorem. If there are no truth preserving operations in PA to
>>>>>>> either G or ~G then G has no truthmaker in PA making G not a
>>>>>>> truth-bearer in PA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there ARE a set of truth preserving operations in PA to show 
>>>>>> G, it is just that it takes an infinite number of them, so they 
>>>>>> don't constitute a proof.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diagonalization conclusively proves otherwise and you know it.
>>>>> Maybe the issue is that you are fundamentally a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How?
>>>>
>>>> I call your bluff, show your "cards" or FOLD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not the way it works, you made a false claim and I
>>> call your bluff on this false claim. You must provide a linked
>>> source that agrees.
>>
>> Of course that is the way it works.
>>
>> You claim you can show something, and I ask you to show it.
>>
>> Failure just means you admit to being a liar.
>>
>> You need to show your proof, that you can form a "Diagonalization" 
>> proof that Godel's sentence is not true.
>>
>> You need to either present the proof, admit you lied that you had one, 
>> or keep being reminded that you have been a liar and can't provide the 
>> proof you claimed you had.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========