Path: ...!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: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:10:42 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 161 Message-ID: References: <27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org> <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org> <81f99208ab5ac8261e19355d54de31bb0ba8cdc6@i2pn2.org> <2c05662d218a25329eec1fb052e96758227d094c@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 04:10:50 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8d80c784efd0efabe57eb4c977e94182"; logging-data="1107097"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/kXn2AAjejj75I35OpZ4KQ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:VTpEK3WqVDNUxE/M4PrFbYQ5k1U= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250309-4, 3/9/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8631 On 3/9/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/9/25 6:32 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/9/2025 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/9/25 3:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/9/2025 2:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 3/9/25 9:25 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/9/2025 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/8/25 10:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/8/25 6:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:01 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 11:41 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:01 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:09 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source code contains a finite sequence of truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving steps between axioms and a statement? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source code 100% completely specifies every single detail >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of exactly what it does on each specific input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying that it does not do this is counter-factual. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, the source code does not meet the >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a proof, so your claim is false. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dumb Bunny: >>>>>>>>>>>> *Proof[0] is anything that shows that X is necessarily true* >>>>>>>>>>>> *and thus impossibly false* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The source-code in Halt7.c combined with the input to HHH >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves every detail of the behavior of HHH on >>>>>>>>>>>> this input. Disagreeing this is either foolish or dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a finite sequence of truth preserving steps >>>>>>>>>>> between the axioms of a system and a true statement that show >>>>>>>>>>> the statement is true. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Proof[math] tries unsuccessfully to inherit from proof[0]. >>>>>>>>>> I am stipulating that I have always been referring to proof[0]. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And I am pointing out that it IS the same, it is just that you >>>>>>>>> don't understand that "Show" implies FINITE. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In that single aspect you are correct. >>>>>>>> Show that X is definitely true and thus impossibly false >>>>>>>> by any means what-so-ever is not proof[math]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> or proof[0], since you can not SHOW something "by any means" if >>>>>>> those means are not showable due to not being finite. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity by repeating your disproved >>>>>>>>> claim. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you cannot understand the Halt7.c conclusively proves[0] >>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of HHH(DD) this is merely your lack of >>>>>>>>>> understanding and nothing more. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure I can understand what it does, as Halt7.c shows that the >>>>>>>>> behavior of the input is to HALT since that is what DD will do >>>>>>>>> when main calls it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU KNOW YOU WERE WRONG* >>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally >>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But The HHH You are talking about doesn't do a correct >>>>>>> simulation, so this statment is not applicable. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _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] >>>>> >>>>> WHich is *NOT* a program, as it has an external reference. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then* >>>>>> >>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach >>>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally >>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong, because emulaiting for "N Steps" is NOT correctly emulation. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Correctly emulating N steps is emulating N steps correctly. >>> >>> Which is only partially emulating it correctly, and only partially >>> correct is incorrect. >>> >>>> >>>> Everyone here that has sufficient technical competence can >>>> see that for any N steps of DD correctly emulated by HHH >>>> that DD cannot possibly reach its own final state and >>>> terminate normally. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> So? As has been pointed out, since HHH can't do enough steps to get >>> to the actual answer, it never CORRECTLY emulated the input enough to >>> get the answer if it aborts. >>> >> >> If HHH can see the same pattern that every competent >> programmer sees then HHH does not need to emulate DD >> more than twice to know that HHH cannot possibly reach >> its own final state and terminate normally. >> > > > The pattern that HHH sees is IDENTICAL to the pattern that HHH1 saw, up > to the point it aborts. > In other words you do not believe that HHH can see what every competent programmer sees. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========