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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Richard seems to continue to blatantly lie -- I hope I am wrong
 about this
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 21:12:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0354c808b6aa23146776ec5ad6eed3b66cab2713@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me>
 <5e6e8072022c865ced4b1a1de23b786bc05c22ce@i2pn2.org>
 <v64qr3$2e7d4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 01:12:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2057084"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v64qr3$2e7d4$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4384
Lines: 71

On 7/3/24 8:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/3/24 2:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> _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 correctly emulated by any element of the infinite
>>> set of every pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
>>> its own ret instruction and halt. That HHH aborts its
>>> emulation at some point or never aborts its emulation
>>> cannot possibly change this.
>>>
>>
>> No, you are just showing your ignorance.
>>
>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to "Correctly Emulate" this input per the semantics 
>> of the x86 instruction set as given, as it referncee undefined memory.
>>
> 
> I already stipulated that the memory IS DEFINED with an
> x86 emulator. Also you have seen that I have proven this.
> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
> 

And if you assume that stipulation for the emulation, then you are 
stipulating that the contents of ALL THE MEMORY is "part of the input".

Also, by stipulating that it is a x86 emulator, do you mean an actually 
complete emulator that fully emulates the input, or is it possible your 
PARTIAL/CONDITIONAL emulator that only emulates part of the behavior of 
the input.

If it is the later, then you can not just replace the call to the 
PARTIAL/CONDITIONAL emulator with the "unconditional" emulation that it 
just doesn't perform (since its emulation is conditional).

Thus even if you relax the requirement of the emulation from being based 
on the semantic of the (which prevents doing the subsitution, since that 
isn't in the semantic of the x86) you can't do it at the functional 
level as a conditional emualation is not the same as an unconditional 
emulation.

Also, since you have agreed that the "input" consists of ALL the 
contents of memory (or at least all that has HHH in it) that means that 
each of your different HHHs are looking at DIFFERENT inputs, and you 
can't talk about one of them showing another one is right, since they 
are working on different input.

That just blows are your work out of the water.

The fact that THIS HHH stops at some point before seeing the return, 
doesn't mean that if you give THIS INPUT to another decider that 
simulates longer, that it can't see that return, thus your "needed to" 
argument has broken, because the alternate deciders need to be given the 
EXACT SAME input, and thus they need to be put in some other unused 
location of memory to allow the original HHH to stay at its designated 
address.

In fact, we can even see if we put another copy of the code of HHH, that 
has been fully renamed to HHH1 it will see that DDD calls HHH(DDD) and 
that HHH will return (since it never sees DDD calling HHH1, it never 
needs to activate the self-simulation code).

Thus, we show that HHH didn't decide right, and even that it isn't an 
actual Computation