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: III correctly emulated by EEE ---
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 07:23:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3f250e699762cfe6fccc844f10eb04f32d470b6a@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>
 <211f9a2a284cb2deaa666f424c1ef826fe855e80@i2pn2.org>
 <vrq330$3dq3n$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7268e8ef47579cacb49b0533d51549a77eb0b96@i2pn2.org>
 <vrqb6f$3k9kh$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 11:23:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1537819"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vrqb6f$3k9kh$2@dont-email.me>

On 3/23/25 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/23/2025 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/23/25 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/23/2025 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> x86utm operates on a compiled object file that
>>> is stored in a single location of global memory.
>>
>> Right, and thus you must consider *ALL* of that memory as the input, 
>> so if you change it, it is a different input.
>>
> 
> You haven't yet noticed that all posts with this title
> [III correctly emulated by EEE] are talking about a pure
> emulator that emulates a finite number of instructions of III.
> 
> 

Which is just a strawman, and a contradiction, as the definition of 
"correct emulation" (to be able to use it in the halting problem as a 
surrogate for the programs behavior) must be complete.

If you want to define a new definition for "Correct Emulation", then all 
you do is knownly make it impossible for the Halt Decider to have any 
idea of what the input does, as that was DEFINED by the direct 
execution, and if correct emulation is no longer defined to be the same, 
then it can't be used for the problem.

Thus, you are just proving that you were never working on what you said 
you were, but were always lying by the use of a strawman.

You have shown that you don't understand the fundamentals of how logic 
works, as you think you get to redefined the basic terms, which you 
don't. (You can create a new, and independent logic system that way, but 
it says nothing about the original system).

This seems to be because you have just no understanding on core concepts 
like Truth.