Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the
 execution trace
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2024 23:43:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <531cb6c63d97b0caa2d87bf5963b3bf850aacb0b@i2pn2.org>
References: <v80h07$2su8m$3@dont-email.me> <v82bi4$39v6n$4@dont-email.me>
 <v82tr5$3dftr$2@dont-email.me> <v82vtl$3dq41$2@dont-email.me>
 <v830hg$3dftr$9@dont-email.me> <v83des$2nhr$1@news.muc.de>
 <KUidnalBUcYWDjj7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v84d5a$3p1o0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 03:43:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="580841"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v84d5a$3p1o0$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6448
Lines: 110

On 7/27/24 11:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/27/2024 7:40 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 27/07/2024 19:14, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stopping running is not the same as halting.
>>>> DDD emulated by HHH stops running when its emulation has been aborted.
>>>> This is not the same as reaching its ret instruction and terminating
>>>> normally (AKA halting).
>>>
>>> I think you're wrong, here.  All your C programs are a stand in for
>>> turing machines.  A turing machine is either running or halted.  
>>> There is
>>> no third state "aborted".  An aborted C program certainly doesn't
>>> correspond with a running turing machine - so it must be a halted turing
>>> machine.
>>>
>>> So aborted programs are halted programs.  If you disagree, perhaps you
>>> could point out where in my arguments above I'm wrong.
>>>
>>
>> Aborting is an action performed by a simulator, not the TM being 
>> simulated.
>>
>> If we want to count "aborted" as some kind of final status, it will 
>> have to be the status of a specific /PARTIAL SIMULATOR's/ simulation 
>> of a given computation.  That's not a property of the computation 
>> itself, as different partial simulators can simulate the same 
>> computation and terminate for different reasons.  Like HHH(DDD) 
>> aborts, while UTM(DDD) simulates to completion and so the final 
>> simulation status is halts. [Neither of those outcomes contradict the 
>> fact that the computation DDD() halts.]
>>
>> If some partial simulator halts when simulating a computation [as with 
>> UTM(DDD)] that implies the computation DDD() halts.  But if the 
>> simulator aborts, it doesn't say that much (in and of itself) about 
>> whether the /computation/ halts.  The halting problem statement is not 
>> concerned with simulations or how the simulations end.
>>
>> Every time anyone in these PO threads says "halts" it ought to be 100% 
>> clear to everyone whether the computation itself is being discussed, 
>> or whether some simulation final status is intended.  (But that's far 
>> from being the case!)  Since the halting problem is concerned with 
>> computations halting and not how partial simulations are ended, I 
>> suggest that PO explicitly make clear that he is referring to 
>> simulations, whenever that is the case.  It seems reasonable that 
>> readers seeing "halts" with no further clarification can interpret 
>> that as actual computation behaviour, as that is how the term is 
>> always used in the literature.  Same with other terms like "reach"...
>>
>> So when PO says "DDD simulated by HHH cannot reach its final ret 
>> instruction" is he talking about the computation DDD() [as defined 
>> mathematically], or its simulation by HHH?  He means the latter, but 
>> its far from clear, I'd say!  [I think most readers now have come 
>> around to reading it as a statement about simulations rather than the 
>> actual computation, which totally changes things...]
>>
>>
>> Mike.
>>
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002174] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
> 
> It is a verified fact that DDD emulated by HHH 100% exactly
> and precisely according to the actual x86 semantics of
> the emulated code including the recursive call that causes
> HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD cannot possibly get
> past it own 0000216b machine address.

No, it is a VERIFIED FACT that HHH does NOT 100% exactly and preciesly 
according to the actual x86 semantics of the emuilated code do anything 
is it doesn't meet that requirement. IT does NOT correct emulate the cll 
000015c3 (call HHH(DDD) ) instruction, so you whole argument is based on 
a LIE.

It doesn't even correctly emulate the code according to program 
equivalents, since HHH is a CONDITIONAL emulator, and HHH ignores that 
factd, and thus you LIES COMOPOND.

> 
> *Anyone as much as hinting otherwise is not being truthful*
> If we remove all of the problematic code then this same
> trace still occurs until it crashes from OOM error.
> 

And, the fact that HHH can not possible emulate the input to the final 
state, becuase is has been programmed to abort its simulation without 
proper grouds just proves that its programmer (YOU) is an idiot.

You are just proving you are totally ignorant of the field you are 
talking about and nothing you say should be given any consideration.

YOu are PROVED this by making uncounted claims that you have NEVER been 
able to show one shread or reliable published papers that support your 
positions, and thus you have proven that you are nothibg but a pathetic 
ignorant pathological liar.

You claim to be trying to combat various merchent of disinformation, but 
then you just use their own techniques, thereby valadating that they are 
acceptable to use.

Sorry, you are a menace to society, and your lies exposed.