Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: a complete emulation of this input could be done --- Liar
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 07:24:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <16027e0c4bd5b0c6bda633bfa97a74dba9b1b65c@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v66v8i$2n56v$4@dont-email.me>
 <v67028$2t9el$1@dont-email.me> <v68b3f$2n56v$5@dont-email.me>
 <v68ocd$39dkv$5@dont-email.me> <v68pfo$2n56v$7@dont-email.me>
 <v68rnv$39tml$2@dont-email.me> <v68tvd$3ac9t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v68uj0$3ahel$1@dont-email.me> <v694k4$3bevk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v69502$3bh3f$1@dont-email.me> <v6b1k4$3odj5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6bf7r$3qiio$2@dont-email.me> <v6bm5v$3rj8n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6bmoe$3ri0l$2@dont-email.me> <v6bnt2$3rj8n$3@dont-email.me>
 <v6brfj$3skuk$2@dont-email.me> <v6c3vh$3ttem$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6c539$3u2mj$1@dont-email.me> <v6dda0$7s8u$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6e67v$bbcb$4@dont-email.me> <v6gss2$t87a$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6gv65$to0m$1@dont-email.me> <v6h2li$ud7p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6h2rm$ue7s$1@dont-email.me> <v6h3cu$ud7p$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6h83q$vag9$1@dont-email.me> <v6iu0s$1acpg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jg5j$1ctoi$3@dont-email.me>
 <b41a3dfce421d48635e133a0ef8824fc438dde36@i2pn2.org>
 <v6kui7$1o833$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:24:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2789540"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v6kui7$1o833$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4631
Lines: 80

On 7/9/24 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/9/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/9/24 10:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/9/2024 3:56 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 08.jul.2024 om 19:36 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/8/2024 11:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> You believe that two equals infinity. 
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Two cycles is enough to correctly determine that none
>>>>> of the above functions correctly emulated by HHH can
>>>>> possibly halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you don't see this is ignorance or deception.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first two irrelevant examples cannot halt, but they differ 
>>>> fundamentally from DDD, because DDD, like Finite_Recursion, halts 
>>>> after N repetitions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I have never explained this issue to Ben this clearly before*
>>> Ben seems to believe that HHH must report that it need not
>>> abort the emulation of DDD because AFTER HHH has already
>>> aborted this emulation DDD does not need to be aborted.
>>>
>>
>> Because it does, since this HHH DOES abort its emulation, it turns out 
>> that a complete emulation of this input could be done, which is the 
>> definition of not needing to abort the emulation.
>>
> 
> _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)
> 
> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
> correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD can't make it
> past the above line of code no matter what.

FALSE

The emulation of DDD by HHH can't make it there.

DDD that was emulated only a finite number of steps by HHH will, after 
the HHH aborts its emulation and returns to its caller (which was DDD).

You just don't understand the difference between Reality and the 
observation of it, which is why you confuse Truth with Knowledge.

Any HHH that only emulates a finite number of instructions and then 
stops does NOT do a fully correct emulation, since every instruction it 
emulated includes the property that the next instruction WILL run, and 
thus needs to be emulated, and thus doesn't get to see the full behavior 
of the input.

The part it misses is the difference.

> 
> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002174] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>