Path: ...!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:30:13 +0000 Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic References: <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5nSdnSkMN76jIOH7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> From: Mike Terry Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 02:30:13 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.17 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5nSdnSkMN76jIOH7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Lines: 65 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-SsqFtNN9IFOCeXZsEkElzn6M2EZD9C2YE//wPAH+KjCksXpUCgAkKPZ7jA8zhrbSskZXiM1/jDlpjzU!zF1IXLx9L5TnV5uZizXQp4uAJ/fiYxTQBwXiyyHBXYRWrWcrLCa5Aj+xbM3nmVRUrdil3yOwKkWF!/9P10J4y4fm2UA2HGgp2umwijRme X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 4650 On 27/06/2024 02:15, Mike Terry wrote: > On 27/06/2024 01:42, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/26/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>>>>>>>> That the the way that lies are defined. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Source for you claim? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system to that claim? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04 >>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp >>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I already told you that example does not count. >>>>> >>>>> I can't keep repeating those details or others >>>>> that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is >>>>> will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension. >>>>> >>>> >>>> WHy not? >>>> >>> >>> We have already been over that you know that you cheated. >>> >> >> Nope, since you didn't put in the rule, and if you had it would have shown that you lied, as if H0 >> is a pure function then the call to H0 emulated by H0 needs to have the same behaivor as the >> direct call to H0 by main. > > Incidentally, the nonconformance you're referring to is shown explicitly in the "195 page trace" > that PO linked to.  [I.e. the simulated H does not correctly track the code path of the outer H.] I suppose I should have made clear, that's not simply due to the simulated H being aborted. There is an instruction in H: [actually, in Init_Halts_HH()] [000012e4] 753b jnz 00001321 and in outer H control proceeds to 000012e6 [i.e. branch not taken], whilein simulated H control proceeds to 00001321 [i.e. branch taken] Mike.