Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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: References: <04db95a103cfbcb76bd6082752ed89932cfce5d5@i2pn2.org> 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: 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 ==========