Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- partial
 simulation never reaches its halt state, but full behavior does ---natural
 number mapping
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 13:23:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <332fdac834dd53dbe6a8650e170f08fac33ca2cf@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me> <v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
 <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v8v7p3$29r2r$1@dont-email.me> <v8vub1$32fso$14@dont-email.me>
 <1e1fa9bc4bbc00aa65c1a7974bd1bda87687c92b@i2pn2.org>
 <v90di8$38oni$1@dont-email.me>
 <47a76378d634bf0db4017f879d0160793b57125e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9161o$3gaju$1@dont-email.me>
 <b84374e766c199e1ba38ef1dc3bc8f6ab2c39dfc@i2pn2.org>
 <v91i97$3n4m0$1@dont-email.me> <v91unh$3rbor$1@dont-email.me>
 <v92gja$p1$3@dont-email.me> <v94m0l$ljf4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v95ae9$p5rb$1@dont-email.me> <v978dv$h1ib$1@dont-email.me>
 <v97j0q$ilah$2@dont-email.me>
 <ccc5dafb53acf66239baac0183a6291687794963@i2pn2.org>
 <v97l3j$kof0$2@dont-email.me> <v97pgq$l4f4$2@dont-email.me>
 <v97qf0$lise$2@dont-email.me> <v97rq3$l4f4$4@dont-email.me>
 <v97t7g$m8l6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 17:23:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2111483"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v97t7g$m8l6$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6682
Lines: 117

On 8/10/24 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/10/2024 9:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 10.aug.2024 om 15:37 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/10/2024 8:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 10.aug.2024 om 14:06 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 8/10/2024 6:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/24 7:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-09 14:51:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-08 13:18:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
>>>>>>>>>>> *emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
>>>>>>>>>>> none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>> its "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The ranges of "each HHH" and "every HHH" are not defined above
>>>>>>>>>> so that does not really mean anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here is something that literally does not mean anything:
>>>>>>>>> "0i34ine ir m0945r (*&ubYU  I*(ubn)I*054 gfdpodf["
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looks like encrypted text that might mean something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This could be encrypted text, too, or perhaps refers to some
>>>>>>>> inside knowledge or convention.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I defined an infinite set of HHH x86 emulators.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe somewnete but not in the message I commented.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I stipulated that each member of this set emulates
>>>>>>>>> zero to infinity instructions of DDD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't restrict much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *I can't say it this way without losing 90% of my audience*
>>>>>>>>> Each element of this set is mapped to one element of the
>>>>>>>>> set of non-negative integers indicating the number of
>>>>>>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is easier to talk about mapping if is given a name.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This one seems to be good*
>>>>>>>>> Each element of this set corresponds to one element of
>>>>>>>>> the set of positive integers indicating the number of
>>>>>>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That would mean that only a finite number (possibly zero) of
>>>>>>>> instructions is emulated. But the restriction to DDD does not
>>>>>>>> seem reasonable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I thopught HHH was a deider?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each element of this set corresponds to one element of
>>>>>>> the set of positive integers indicating the number of
>>>>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it correctly emulates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And only those element of the set that either reach the final 
>>>>>> state, or simulate forever are "correct" emulators of the whole 
>>>>>> program, suitable to show halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words even though it is dead obvious to
>>>>> us that a complete simulation of DDD simulated by HHH
>>>>
>>>> is impossible, because HHH is programmed to abort and, therefore, it 
>>>> is unable to do a complete simulation.
>>>
>>> A complete simulation of DDD by a pure x86 emulator
>>> named HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
>>> instruction halt state.
>>
>> Indeed, HHH fails to reach its own halt state. HHH cannot possibly 
>> simulate itself up to its halt state.
>> Which proves that the simulation is incomplete and, therefore, incorrect.
>>
> 
> That an emulation of an input is necessary correct no matter
> what-the-Hell it does as long as it conforms to the semantics
> of the x86 language is either over your head or you persistently
> lie about it.
> 

Which isn't "what the hell it does". but a correct x86 emulation by the 
semantic of the x86 language will ALWAYS and ONLY behave EXACTLY like 
that input when run as a program, and thus MUST include all of the 
instructions use, including that of all the routines it calls.

Since HHH has been shown to NOT do a correct emulation, claims of what a 
correct emulation does are irrelevent.

Since every HHH is different, and creates a different DDD, it is just a 
LIE to use the behavior of one DDD/HHH pair to justify the behavior of a 
differents HHH's input.

Sorry, you are just proving yourself to be too stupid to understand your 
own misunderstandings, which is the worse type of stupid to be.