Path: news.eternal-september.org!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: The actual code of HHH
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 07:40:20 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <215397b72913433fec8e645c6ab0c51ba6c46ccc@i2pn2.org>
References: <f73c3b97590a4d189e33a2cf255ed3337e56d3cf@i2pn2.org>
 <vpo6v9$2p51t$1@dont-email.me>
 <9b4f34b56d46274d2ef819d313770251aff04b65@i2pn2.org>
 <vpor68$2vaf3$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 12:40:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2029402"; 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: <vpor68$2vaf3$7@dont-email.me>

On 2/26/25 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/26/2025 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/26/25 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2025 3:52 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Since there is so much talk around, but not really about it,
>>>> let's take a look:
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/
>>>> 48b4cbfeb3f486507276a5fc4e9b10875ab24dbf/Halt7.c#L1081
>>>> In line 1137, we compute a flag:
>>>> u32 Root = Init_Halts_HH(&Aborted, &execution_trace, &decoded, 
>>>> &code_end,
>>>> (u32)P, &master_state, &slave_state, &slave_stack);
>>>> In line 918, we find it basically checks for the magic number
>>>> **execution_trace==0x90909090. What is this unexplained value?
>>>>
>>>> We then pass the saved flag in line 1143:
>>>> if (Decide_Halting_HH(&Aborted, &execution_trace, &decoded,
>>>> code_end, End_Of_Code, &master_state, &slave_state, &slave_stack, 
>>>> Root)),
>>>> defined in line 1030.
>>>> Then we get a switch:
>>>> 1059    if (Root)  // Master UTM halt decider
>>>> Line 1070 is then conditionally skipped:
>>>> Needs_To_Be_Aborted_HH((Decoded_Line_Of_Code*)**execution_trace);
>>>> defined in line 1012, which (on a jmp or call instruction) calls
>>>> u32 Needs_To_Be_Aborted_Trace_HH(Decoded_Line_Of_Code* execution_trace,
>>>>                                   Decoded_Line_Of_Code *current)
>>>> in line 964, where the abort logic lives. (It basically triggers
>>>> on a call or jump to itself.)
>>>>
>>>> So we only abort depending on the address of the execution trace.
>>>> This makes no sense. Why is that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> DD emulated by HHH according to the behavior that the x86
>>> machine code of DD cannot possibly terminate normally thus
>>> HHH is infallibly correct to report that this DD emulated
>>> by HHH (not any other DD in the whole freaking universe)
>>> is not-terminating.
>>>
>>
>> No, HHH doesn't see the actual behavior define by the x86 processor, 
>> as it aborts its simulaiton before it gets there. You just don't know 
>> what "correct" means,
>>
> 
> If you cannot provide the correct first fifteen steps of
> DD correctly emulated by HHH to show exactly how I am wrong
> then everyone that understands these things will understand
> that YOUR REBUTTAL HAS NO BASIS.
> 
> I am writing this for my posthumous reviewers.
> 

I guess you are just admitting to your posthuous reviews that you always 
were just making things up.

Since HHH has definite code, (that of Halt7), you should be able to 
provide that trace yourself.

Of course, the problem is that HHH can not have definite code, and thus 
definite behavior, or then you can't talk about the "any HHH".

This means that in your model, the program DD can't be a definite set of 
code, since it calls HHH, and thus it isn't valid as an input.

As a fragment, no HHH can correctly emulate the input you provide here 
beyond the call HHH instruction, as nothing beyond that point is 
available from the input.

This means your claim is based on the assumption of an impossibility, 
and your logic proven to be just a fraud.

All you are doing is proving for all time that you are too stupid to 
understand the meaning of the words, and so stupid and prideful that you 
can not admit you need to learn them.

Your "logic", if we can streach the meaning of the word to cover what 
you use, is just based on LIES, and false assumptions, and a total 
disregard for what is actually true, but the beleif that you can make up 
what you want.

Sorry, you are just too stupid to beleive, and you have made that clear 
to posterity.

At first, I thought that you might have had some idea applicable to 
general Philosophy, but you have proven that if there was anything 
there, it is untrustworth as it has grown up in a bed of stupid lies, 
and thus shouldn't be touched with a 40' pole.