Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:33:46 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 178 Message-ID: References: <27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org> <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 03:33:47 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d63a95d414014c9c5b76bf21b1bac3a5"; logging-data="457562"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Q9nIs+6YUydYVTKjpXqJe" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:sJR29M7v2ogd+x5D9vnc9UeuEVg= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250308-6, 3/8/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 9848 On 3/8/2025 7:52 PM, dbush wrote: > On 3/8/2025 8:19 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/8/2025 6:54 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 3/8/2025 7:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/8/2025 5:54 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 3/8/2025 6:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/8/25 9:09 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 03:31 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:20 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:57 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you know that what you're working >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on has nothing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with the halting problem, but you don't care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFLECTION. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you know these things pretty >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well SO QUIT THE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SHIT! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing the code of HHH to an unconditional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator and running >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD) will not halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own "ret" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, replacing the code of HHH with an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconditional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, which you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously agreed is correct: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>> terminate normally by reaching its own "return" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> unconditional simulator then it can be shown that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> non-halting and therefore HHH(DD)==0 is correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > Wow finally someone that totally gets it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you disagree, explain why this is different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In particular, give an example where X correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by Y is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from replacing the code of Y with an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconditional simulator >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and subsequently running Y(X). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I may not have enough time left to change the subject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and endlessly go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through anything but the exact point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You used to have enough time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is before the CAR T cell manufacturing process failed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> twice. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which really means you need to abandon your fraudulent methods >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _DD() >>>>>>>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local >>>>>>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD) >>>>>>>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax >>>>>>>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d >>>>>>>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04] >>>>>>>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp >>>>>>>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret >>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally >>>>>>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No such HHH exists. >>>>>>>>>>> The programmer of HHH has the following options when HHH >>>>>>>>>>> reaches the call to HHH: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1) It just follows the call and starts simulating the code of >>>>>>>>>>> HHH. This might eventually lead to infinite recursion. So, no >>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The code proves otherwise >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A program does not prove. In particular, it does not prove that no >>>>>>>>> different program exists. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The source code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it >>>>>>>> actually does. Whenever anyone disagrees with what it >>>>>>>> actually does (as most people here have tried to get >>>>>>>> away with) they are necessarily incorrect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is that HHH will look at memory not defined to be part of >>>>>>> its input, and thus HHH is not the pure function you have agreed >>>>>>> it must be. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY AGREE OR STFU !!! >>>>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and >>>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD)  cannot possibly >>>>>> reach its own final state and terminate normally. >>>>>> >>>>>> Two people with masters degrees in computer science >>>>>> agreed. Gaslighting me on this makes you look like >>>>>> a complete nitwit. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think everyone would agree, as you said, that if the code of HHH >>>>> is replaced with an unconditional simulator and HHH(DD) is run, >>>>> that it will not halt. >>>>> >>>>> So now what? >>>>> >>>> >>>> We add the mandatory required details to your simplistic >>>> idea such that additional elaboration from this full set >>>> of details: >>>> >>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and >>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach >>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally >>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. >>>> >>> >>> Obviously.  So now what? >> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========