Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---repeat until understood
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:18:47 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3eaeab66a4ab32a0d99f6a1c6c07ba02a5fe4f28@i2pn2.org>
References: <veoift$29dtl$2@dont-email.me> <vfgaev$36im7$5@dont-email.me>
 <vfi743$3kr1e$1@dont-email.me> <vfip3l$3ner2$2@dont-email.me>
 <1bc1ab08ec47bf818ddff1d4f63b542ceadd6985@i2pn2.org>
 <vfjokd$3su2f$1@dont-email.me> <vfk3jl$3kr0c$5@i2pn2.org>
 <vfk4lk$3ukdm$1@dont-email.me> <vfl8o9$3mnmt$5@i2pn2.org>
 <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpcko$1837o$3@dont-email.me> <vfpish$3u885$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpjk2$1976k$1@dont-email.me>
 <086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org>
 <vfqs6h$1jg83$1@dont-email.me> <vfs1fj$2ci0$7@i2pn2.org>
 <vfs2rm$1q2ou$2@dont-email.me>
 <cdd23411358bd88db9419d0106ab3e25dc37260b@i2pn2.org>
 <vft8pj$25aio$5@dont-email.me>
 <b786b58d2058713493adee78df4d67104049a6e8@i2pn2.org>
 <vfuq13$2dd86$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 03:18:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="236349"; 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: <vfuq13$2dd86$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7043
Lines: 130

On 10/30/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/30/2024 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/30/24 8:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2024 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/24 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/29/2024 8:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/29/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/29/2024 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/28/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/24 9:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to emulate DDD per the x86 semantics 
>>>>>>>>>>>> without the code for HHH, so it needs to be part of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *You seemed to be a totally Jackass here*
>>>>>>>>>>> You are not that stupid
>>>>>>>>>>> You are not that ignorant
>>>>>>>>>>> and this is not your ADD
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> At machine address 0000217a HHH emulates itself emulating
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD without knowing that it is emulating itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then how did it convert the call HHH into an emulation of DDD 
>>>>>>>>>> again?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When HHH (unknowingly) emulates itself emulating DDD this
>>>>>>>>> emulated HHH is going to freaking emulate DDD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you think it was going to play poker?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is what it would do, get stuck and fail to be a decider. 
>>>>>>>> It might figure out that it is emulating an emulating decider, 
>>>>>>>> at which point it knows that the decider might choose to abort 
>>>>>>>> its conditional emulation to return, so it needs to emulate 
>>>>>>>> further.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only by recognizing itself, does it have grounds to say that if 
>>>>>>>> I don't abort, it never will, and thus I am stuck, so I need to 
>>>>>>>> abort.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Counter-factual. This algorithm has no ability to its own code.
>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c // page 801
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *That people fail to agree with this and also fail to*
>>>>>>> *correctly point out any error seems to indicate dishonestly*
>>>>>>> *or lack of technical competence*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
>>>>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
>>>>>>> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it knows its own code because it rule for "No conditional 
>>>>>> branches" excludes that code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really so stupid that you think this will help
>>>>> DDD reach its own return instruction?
>>>>
>>>> DDD doesn't need any help to reach its own return instruction, as 
>>>> the HHH that it calls DOES abort and return to it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you really so stupid that you think you can keep getting
>>> away with the strawman deception by changing the subject away
>>> from DDD emulated by HHH?
>>>
>>
>>
>> What strawman?
>>
>> I am just going to the defintions of the problem you claim to be solving.
>>
> 
> Do I have to repeat this a few hundred times in every post
> so that you can remember from one post to the next?
> 
> *AT THIS POINT HHH IS NOT A HALT DECIDER OR A TERMINATION ANALYZER*
> *AT THIS POINT HHH IS NOT A HALT DECIDER OR A TERMINATION ANALYZER*
> *AT THIS POINT HHH IS NOT A HALT DECIDER OR A TERMINATION ANALYZER*

But, you haven't removed yourself from the topic, so the definitions 
still apply.

> 
> HHH is each element of the set of x86 emulators that emulates zero
> to infinity steps of DDD including zero to infinity emulations of
> itself emulating DDD.

No, it isn't, because your published HHH is not a "set of programs".

It is *A* progrtam.

> 
> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.
> 
>

Which means HHH can't abort its emulaiton, or it fails to meet its 
requrements.

And thus the ONLY HHH that meets yor requrements is a different one than 
presented, and that one returns to NOBODY.

You can't try to redefine the terms until you clearly and public 
announce that you are leaving Computation Theory behind, and nothing you 
talk about can be broght back in.

Then you need to sit down and actually DEFINE what you mean by things, 
and that means clarify the equivocation.

Sorry, but thpse ARE the rules.