Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: III correctly emulated by EEE ---
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 17:46:20 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <211f9a2a284cb2deaa666f424c1ef826fe855e80@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrgme1$2tr56$1@dont-email.me>
 <vri5mn$6nv4$1@dont-email.me>
 <8354fe5751e03a767452a3999818d5c6da714a6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrigh6$f35v$1@dont-email.me> <vrj6d3$14iuu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjog0$1ilbe$6@dont-email.me>
 <db8aa67218b2a0990cd1df38aca29dbd3930e145@i2pn2.org>
 <vrkumg$2l2ci$2@dont-email.me>
 <ba957e964c1090cbb801b1688b951ac095281737@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmepa$2r2l$1@dont-email.me>
 <d8ee6d675850304b99af1b587437ba0ac64dbb85@i2pn2.org>
 <vrms64$cvat$2@dont-email.me>
 <76e394abe71be9cdc7f1948e73352c4f76ae409e@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmua7$cvat$8@dont-email.me>
 <dc633a07cd15e2c80ed98083cc5f9d218edcc9da@i2pn2.org>
 <vro0hk$1c9ia$1@dont-email.me>
 <9adf9b9c30250aaa2d3142509036c892db2b7096@i2pn2.org>
 <vrpfua$2qbhf$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 21:46:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1466043"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vrpfua$2qbhf$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8291
Lines: 167

On 3/23/25 1:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/23/2025 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/22/25 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/25 2:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/22/2025 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/22/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 11:37 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:43:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>     HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> There is no program DDD in the above code.
>>>>>>>> There is also no Infinite_Recursion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since no Turing machine M can ever compute the mapping from the 
>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>> of any directly executed TM2 referring to the behavior of the 
>>>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>>>> executed DDD has always been incorrect. Halt Deciders always 
>>>>>>>>> report on
>>>>>>>>> the behavior that their input finite string specifies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please explain what behaviour the description of a TM "specifies",
>>>>>>>> and which TM the input describes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bill sang a song" describes what Bill did.
>>>>>>> A tape recording of Bill singing that same
>>>>>>> song completely specifies what Bill did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what a UTM does with this input completely specifies its 
>>>>>> behavior,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In every case that does not involve pathological self-reference 
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> behavior that the finite string specifies is coincidentally the 
>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>> behavior as the direct execution of the corresponding machine. The
>>>>>>>>> actual measure, however, has always been the behavior that the 
>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>> string input specifies.
>>>>>>>> ...which is the direct execution. Not much of a coincidence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _III()
>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III
>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III)
>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When-so-ever any correct emulator EEE correctly emulates
>>>>>>> a finite number of steps of an input III that calls this
>>>>>>> same emulator to emulate itself the behavior of the direct
>>>>>>> execution of III will not be the same as the behavior of
>>>>>>> the emulated III.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Becuase a finite emulation that stop before the end is not a 
>>>>>> correct emulation 
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words you keep dishonestly trying to get away with
>>>>> disagreeing with the law of identity.
>>>>>
>>>>> When N steps are III are correctly emulated by EEE
>>>>> then N steps are III are correctly emulated by EEE.
>>>>
>>>> Which isn't the same as the CORRECT emulation that shows if the 
>>>> program being emulated will halt/.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There exists no Natural Number N number of steps of III
>>>>> correctly emulated by EEE where III reaches its
>>>>> own "ret" instruction and terminates normally.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because
>>>
>>> In other words you agree that the recursive emulation
>>> of a single finite string of x86 machine code single
>>> machine address [00002172] cannot possibly reach its
>>> own machine address [00002183]when emulated by emulator
>>> EEE according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But it isn't a single finite string of x86 machince code, 
> 
> As a matter of verified fact it is a single finite
> string of machine code at a fixed offset in the
> Halt7.obj file.

Nope, because DEFINTIONALLY, to correctly emulate it, you need ALL of it 
(at least all seen by the emulator) and thus you can't change the parts 
seen and still be talking about the same input.

Your claim just shows you are a patholgical liar.

You can not "correctly emulate" the code of just the function, you need 
the rest of the code, which mean you can't do the variations you talk about.

That is basic to the definitions of the items in the problem.

Of course, in your FRAUD, you just ignore those definitions, but then 
you can say you results apply to the Halting Problem, as that wasn't 
defined in your system, but the classical one.

> 
>> as to emulate it we need to include the machine code of EEE, 
> 
> Which would also be a single finite string of machine code
> at a fixed offset in the Halt7.obj file if it was not an
> infinite set of hypothetical pure x86 emulators.

But the single finite string that didn't change, when you create that 
set of DIFFERENT EEEs, isn't a complete program, and you couldn't 
emulate your string by the rules of the x86 language past the call EEE 
instruction.

Your problem is either the code of EEE is in the input, and thus can't 
be changed or you need to admit that every emulation is of a different 
input, or you need to exclude the code of EEE, and then you can't 
emulate the input without looking at things not defined by it.

> 
>> which you just said froms an infinite set of partial emulators.
>>
>> That is your fundamental problem, that you need to redefine the 
>> meaning of core terms 
> 
> A freaking set of pure x86 emulators EEE[0] to EEE[N] that
> emulates 0 to N instructions of III IS NOT REDEFINING ANY
> TERMS.

How do they emulate the input for any N > 4, and be a proper program 
that only uses its input, when the input doesn't contain the instruction 
that it needs to emulate?

You are just proving you don't understand what a PROGRAM is, and that 
your argument is based on the FRAUD of using an incorrect definition for it.

All you have done is proved that you life has been spent just putting 
out many lies about things, lies that apparently you have believed 
yourself, since you brainwashed yourself to avoid learning the proper 
rules as you brainwashed yourself that the truth would brainwash you.

Sorry, you wasted your life by killing your reputation by giving in the 
the power of the lie.

> 
>> to try to "establish" your facts, and thus you don't establish them in 
>> the logic system you claim to be talking about (the one that Turing 
>> made his claim in)
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========