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: DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally --- x86
 code
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:14:10 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <56e94ee1165f9b530db81df05f2ad242bbab0cb9@i2pn2.org>
References: <vptlfu$3st19$9@dont-email.me>
 <d128909f1359b48293dd1823d22d671435d5640c@i2pn2.org>
 <vpv6ad$8sdm$1@dont-email.me>
 <5c444106eafa1235cc4953d9be6faddf8825bcf3@i2pn2.org>
 <vpvlim$bjn9$2@dont-email.me> <vpvq9v$cc26$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpvt8k$bjn9$15@dont-email.me> <vq00h3$cc27$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq095o$f3k3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 01:14:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2424304"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vq095o$f3k3$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5091
Lines: 95

On 3/1/25 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/1/2025 4:08 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 01.mrt.2025 om 22:12 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/1/2025 2:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 01.mrt.2025 om 20:01 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 3/1/2025 10:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/1/25 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/1/2025 6:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/25 7:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
>>>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
>>>>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
>>>>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we hypothesize that the code at machine address
>>>>>>>>> 0000213c is an x86 emulator then we know that DD
>>>>>>>>> remains stuck in recursive emulation and cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we add the additional complexity that HHH also
>>>>>>>>> aborts this sequence at some point then every level
>>>>>>>>> of recursive emulation immediately stops. This does
>>>>>>>>> not enable any DD to ever reach its "ret" instruction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But then you just negated your first assumption, as a partial 
>>>>>>>> emulator that aborts its emulation, then DD no longer gets stuck.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate 
>>>>>>> normally
>>>>>>> proves non-termination whether aborted or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate 
>>>>>>> normally
>>>>>>> proves non-termination whether aborted or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate 
>>>>>>> normally
>>>>>>> proves non-termination whether aborted or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it DOES terminate 
>>>>>
>>>>> DD emulated by HHH never terminates no matter how many
>>>>> times you try to get away with the straw-man deception
>>>>> of referring to anything at all besides
>>>>>
>>>>> DD EMULATED BY HHH
>>>>> DD EMULATED BY HHH
>>>>> DD EMULATED BY HHH
>>>>> DD EMULATED BY HHH
>>>>> DD EMULATED BY HHH
>>>>> DD EMULATED BY HHH
>>>> HHH emulating DD fails to reach the 'ret' instruction. 
>>>
>>> Because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation
>>> thus non-termination is entirely the fault of DD.
>> No, DD calls HHH only once. 
> 
> When DD is correctly emulated by HHH and DD calls HHH(DD)
> then DD calls HHH in recursive emulation.

ANd if HHH correctly emulates DD, then it, and all copies of it will 
never return, and thus HHH is not a decider.

> 
> When HHH breaks this otherwise endless chain every level
> of DD immediately stops with none of them ever reaching
> their "ret" instruction.

It then fails to meet the above requirements, and thus your logic done 
above is incorrect.

Your logic is just based on a isomophism to the Liar's Paradox.

> 
> It is not that hard when you understand these things
> and impossible when you don't.
> 

No, it isn't hard to see, and what is clear is that you are just an 
ignorant pathological lying idiot that doesn't care about the truth.