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: DDD correctly but partially emulated by HHH cannot possibly be
 seen to halt by HHH, but do halt
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 19:23:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <08a17a199816d4e6a2273d957b946e89addb7fcb@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jpe5$1eul0$1@dont-email.me> <v6jpqo$1e3jq$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6jqfg$1eul0$2@dont-email.me> <v6k6md$1h3a7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6k9ef$1hicb$1@dont-email.me>
 <04b97cd4a405abead92368522fcf77070bb4fa55@i2pn2.org>
 <v6l24d$1oqjv$1@dont-email.me>
 <a267bfdf93c6fc179d09a3f62f25003f033aaff1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6m331$1tj30$7@dont-email.me>
 <6d43f24547a3b170ce6f7a99e30ec60dec589f79@i2pn2.org>
 <v6n8ob$24dmg$3@dont-email.me>
 <7f9b731b2367a2bcf2883278ee5265d30a8f82d6@i2pn2.org>
 <v6nau1$24jgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <744d42e4d9d67b49cb1844a2651cb0c350760f0c@i2pn2.org>
 <v6nc22$2501i$1@dont-email.me>
 <c784fa694b9d68f5ace1d07c9870050681268fdc@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ori5$2fuva$10@dont-email.me>
 <56314b3bac257d0fc228c26f3c8c5eec40a87215@i2pn2.org>
 <v6q4cj$2r7qt$1@dont-email.me>
 <1fbe0efc5b030be11df07a930754d90ce56525be@i2pn2.org>
 <v6q7vo$2rvqi$1@dont-email.me>
 <03ba90ee0fbe42d2596ab18d6a5ca17ecdf1e921@i2pn2.org>
 <v6r7i8$30qtt$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:23:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3075350"; 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: <v6r7i8$30qtt$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6098
Lines: 104

On 7/12/24 8:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/12/2024 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/11/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/11/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
> is the semantics of the x86 programming language. By this
> measure when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated
> by each pure function x86 emulator HHH (of the infinite
> set of every HHH that can possibly exist) then DDD cannot
> possibly reach its own machine address of 00002174 and halt.

You CAN'T atipulate "Correct", only what definition you are using

But using x86 sematics is a correct definition, and means that partial 
emulations are NOT correct, as part of the definition of every 
non-terminal x86 instruction is that the next instruction at the 
resulting PC address WILL be run.

Thus, if HHH actually DOES such an emulation, you have shown that it 
will never be able to give a result.

And, if HHH doesn't do the ACTUAL correct emulation, but only a partial 
emulation and then return, then the FULLY CORRECT emulation of that 
input will see after HHH aborts it partial emulation the continuation of 
a HHH emulating its input, aborting its emulation and returning to DDD 
and DDD returning, thus getting to the point you LIED about it not 
getting to.

Your problem is you confuse the TRUTH about the behavior of DDD with the 
partial observation by its partial emulation done by HHH.

DDD DOES reach that point.

The PARTIAL emulation by HHH of DDD doesn't, but being partial doesn't 
let HHH know about that behavior, but HHH's not knowing doesn't mean it 
doesn't happen.

> 
> _DDD()
> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002174] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
> 
>>>>>
>>>>> When 1,2,3... ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by
>>>>> HHH it is a lie to say that this many instructions were
>>>>> not correctly emulated and you know it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But only N instructions "correctly emulated" is NOT a CORRECT 
>>>> emulaition of the instructions of DDD/HHH
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!
>>> I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!
>>> I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!
>>> I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!
>>> I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!
>>>
>>
>> So, I guess NONE of them ever stop before reaching the end, if none of 
>> them stop before that.
>>
> 
> 1,2,3... ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated is every
> HHH/DDD pair that can possibly exist when HHH is a pure
> function x86 emulator.
> 
> No more dishonest shell game ruse
> https://jorynjenkins.com/hiding-the-pea/
> That wastes weeks and weeks talking in circles.

So, the finite emulations that return answers, are wrong as explained above.

The HHH the never abor tdo create DDD that never halt, but also those 
HHH never repreot that behaivor, so also fail to be a decider.

> 
> For each element of this infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs
> DDD never halts. For every finite N number of emulated
> steps HHH halts.

Nope, as explained above, EVERY element of that set with an HHH that 
only does a finite emulation, WILL return, and thus those HHH are wrong.

Yes, the DDD based on an HHH that never aborts its emulation will be 
non-halting, but such an HHH can never actually "report" that behavior, 
so it is also wrong.

> 
> This means that every HHH of this set that aborts its
> emulation of DDD is correct to reject its DDD as non
> halting.
> 

Nope, every one is WRONG (or failed to report).

You are just proving yourself to be a LIAR.