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: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth ---- V4
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 21:55:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ca374c8cf877fc5dc5e17c7126c50a3bbfd9252c@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9q52r$1tedb$1@dont-email.me> <v9v62s$2r09r$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9vcuu$2rjt1$5@dont-email.me>
 <adb5612eba2f4377ad4efda9a5c98c3a3e137efb@i2pn2.org>
 <va0mlk$32g4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <0fa571c92c424a389043145d38719604eb191c7d@i2pn2.org>
 <va0p93$32g4t$2@dont-email.me>
 <67837ddc003407e4926675360b2cfeab4843ad43@i2pn2.org>
 <va0s29$376ed$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 01:55:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3166590"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <va0s29$376ed$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3460
Lines: 69

On 8/19/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/19/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/19/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> _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 is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
> *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
> *running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)

No, it is just a basic fact that NO emulator can properly emulate the 
about input past the 4th instruction, as the data just isn't provided.

PERIOD.

Note, above you say HHH, below you say HHHn, thus they are not related 
problems,

Sorry, you are just proving yourself to be an ignorant liar.


> 
> X = DDD emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the x86 language
> Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD
> Z = DDD never stops running
> 
> The above claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
> 
> void EEE()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
> }
> 
> HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of DDD the same
> way that HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of EEE.
> 


Nope, and HHHn creates a DDDn that will call HHHn that will return to it 
after emulating n steps, and then DDDn will halt

You are just proving you don't understand the difference between the 
behavior of the actuall DDDn to the partial simulation of it by HHHn.

DDDn's behavior doesn't stop just because the emulator looking at it 
stopped, but continues to the final state,

The Emulation of DDDn by HHHn DOES stop when HHHn stops emulating, and 
thus doesn't tell you what happens afterwards unless you can form an 
actual valid inductive argument to carry the emulation forward.

Sorry, you are just proving how stupid you are.

And, that you are nothing but a cheat that trys to twist the words.