Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- key error in all the proofs --- Mike Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:23:30 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 116 Message-ID: References: <60f1a533219c1237071f358999228eb48727f5e9@i2pn2.org> <895f5e9b934bbfb72925fb109043500d49100a6a@i2pn2.org> <0f8f134fe961ee00910cce1d7f05b632d7567c6c@i2pn2.org> <86c21e8a63450bf8b0c32f4f17ba0b503a914fe0@i2pn2.org> <2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org> <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org> <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 23:23:31 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0de40597f43653f20eea109a93bb850d"; logging-data="3658064"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+O/nFAw3qHXVxJJ6Nvu3X7" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ny5NFqT+ZiF/gbm9JTR16XGMtWY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 7025 On 8/12/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 8/12/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 8/12/2024 1:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 8/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/12/2024 12:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> YOU don't understand the rules of the x86 code, or don't care if >>>>> you are wrong, as NOTHING in the x86 language allows the leaving of >>>>> the direct exectuion thread and into showing the code the simulator >>>>> being simulated is simulating. The ONLY correct answer is showing >>>>> it doing the simulating. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I showed the first four lines of this code >>>> highlighted in red and you ignored it. >>>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf > > First a few comments about this file. > > It has clearlly changed over time without notice, you said you added > highlighting, but it also has had content changes. > > It really needs to be date-stamped and version controlled. I can not say > if the copy I look at today is the same as I looked at the other day. > > Second, it is NOT the trace you keep on claiming but is the trace that > x86UTM makes of running main, with the trace that the levels of HHH do > inserted (WITHOUT COMMENT) into the listing, making the trace that HHH > generats hard to find. > > The length of the wrong trace starts on page 38, so there are only about > 160 pages of trace (the rest is an assembly listing of the program, > useful to understand the trace, but not part of the trace itself) and > there are only 1 to 2 lines from HHH per page, so a trace of just what > HHH does would be only about 200-300 LINES long, not 200 pages, and not > beyond what many people can handle, especially when you remove the cruft > of having to wade through all the other junk that isn't the trace that > HHH makes. > > There are also clearly functions that are not even correctly listed in > the assembly listings, nor traced, that seem to be hooks to make OS > calls. That isn't totally unreasonable, but not clearly marked as such. > > >>> >>> No, you ignored my comments. >>> >>> First, that isn't a trace generated by HHH emulating DDD, but by >>> x86UTM emulating HHH, so your claim is just a type error. >>> >>> Then when I look at this emulation, we see that HHH *ONLY* emulates >>> those first 4 instructions of HHH and no more, >> >> That is counter factual. > > Looking closer, I may have gotten confused by the changing file by the > same name > > I do see the simulation continuing into HHH, but ... > > One thing I do note is that the trace sees conditional jump instructions > in the trace, but your "rule" is that there can be no conditional > instructions see in the full loop, so something is wrong. > > One instruction I see is: > Page 79, simulated the JNZ 00001335 at address 000012f8 > Why wasn't this counted as a conditional instruction in the trace? > (That means the recursion isn't unconditional) > > So, mybe it is a correct partial emulation, but just ignores some of the > meaning, so that conditional recursion is incorrectly considered to be > infinite recursion. Perhaps you just failed to test you code to see that > it correctly detects conditional jump instructions. > > Note, examining your code, your code also VIOLATES your requirement to > be a pure functikon. > > First, in Init_Halts_HH you detect if you are the "root" decider by look > to see it the stack is at the initial prefilled value, and if so make > yourself the "root" and setup a trace buffer, and record that we are the > "Root" > > Then in Decides_Halting_HH you test that Root flag, and only the "Root" > decider actually does halt deciding, thus the copy of HHH that DDD calls > performs a DIFFERENT set of actions to the ones that the one called by > main does. > > Thus, You are proven to be a liar that you code ACTUALLY acts as a pure > function. The static memory isn't just a way for the lower emulator to > have its results seen by the higher emulator, but the emulators actually > change from Halt Deciders to pure emulators when they are nes > > >> >>> that it doesn't simulate what happens in HHH after the jmp 000015e7 >>> instruction, and thus you claim is still a LIE. >>> >> >> That is counter factual. > > Maybe it is recording but not looking at those instructions. Why else is > it ignoring the conditional instructions? > I proved that your statements were counter-factual. Instead of admitting whoops I goofed you are trying to get away with changing the subject. The subject is ONLY HHH does correct emulate itself emulated DDD. I am about to forever give up on you. I finally found a group of tens of thousands of people that totally understand what I am saying. Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer