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
Subject: Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:52:20 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1e5217c5ee16512c5919ba0c4752d690ef494d3d@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me> <v6ikv5$19h6q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jguf$1ctoi$5@dont-email.me> <v6ji1d$1dpoc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jig0$1ctoi$11@dont-email.me> <v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jpe5$1eul0$1@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 02:52:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2743986"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6jpe5$1eul0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4593
Lines: 82

On 7/9/24 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/9/2024 10:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 09.jul.2024 om 16:46 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/9/2024 9:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Indeed, no such HHH exists. This proves that HHH cannot possibly 
>>>> simulate itself correctly.
>>>
>>> "Correctly" means must do whatever the x86 code specifies.
>>
>> And since the x86 code never specifies an abort, it is incorrect to 
>> abort halfway a simulation that would halt. We know it would halt, 
>> because other simulators show that it halts when HHH is correctly 
>> simulated.
>> If you want to deny this truth, point to the specification of the x86 
>> language where it says that a program must be aborted. It is 
>> irrational to defend an unneeded abort with a reference to the x86 
>> specifications.
>>
>>> You are in psychological denial causing you to be irrational.
>>
>> Illogical and irrelevant remarks ignored. I know olcott has problems 
>> to recognize the truth, so I do not feel offended.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _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 DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function*
>>>>> *HHH x86 emulator that can possibly exist* which calls
>>>>> an emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat this process until the
>>>>> emulated DDD is aborted.
>>>>
>>
>> And the fact *that* it aborts, makes the simulation incorrect (as 
>> Sipser would agree with), because the X86 code does not specify an 
>> abort at that point. Therefore, the only conclusion must be: No such 
>> HHH exists.
> 
> HHH is fully operational in the x86utm operating system.

And needs to be included as part of the input DDD or it isn't a program.

> 
> _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 DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function x86
> emulator HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) this call cannot
> possibly return. This prevents the emulated DDD from ever
> reaching past its own machine address of 0000216b and halting.
> 
> HHH is required to report that it must abort the emulaton of
> its input. HHH cannot correctly report that DDD need not be
> aborted on the basis of the behavior of a directly executed
> DDD(DDD) after HHH has already aborted its emulated DDD.
> The sequence of sequence, selection and iteration cannot be
> ignored.
> 

Nope, the CALL to HHH by DDD WILL Return if ANY HHH(DDD) call returns, 
it just will be after the emulation of that DDD is stopped.

Stopping the emulation of a program does not stop the behavior of the 
program.

Something that seems to be beyound your understanding, which is probarly 
why you don't understand thing about the nature of truth.