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: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 22:47:14 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5cae749bec153cf207c043337e040019ff8feedd@i2pn2.org>
References: <vajdta$2qe9s$1@dont-email.me> <vak3a0$2teq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vakhnf$302rl$2@dont-email.me> <vamk7l$3d7ki$1@dont-email.me>
 <van3v7$3f6c0$5@dont-email.me> <vap7b1$3sobs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapvbc$3vumk$5@dont-email.me>
 <e10aee5b3ede543da42ba76ac4d7f0a0fe762695@i2pn2.org>
 <vasmn8$hmpd$1@dont-email.me> <vaumg9$ut9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav0r9$10jsm$1@dont-email.me> <vavb4a$11uqn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vavca1$1283f$1@dont-email.me> <vave2b$11uqn$7@dont-email.me>
 <vavfoi$12m8t$4@dont-email.me> <vb1hq0$1fgj7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4enb$2rs5t$3@dont-email.me> <vb6iop$39hrf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb74m3$3b4ub$11@dont-email.me> <vbel4p$pko5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbeoik$punj$2@dont-email.me> <vbh116$19c8m$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhlpj$1c7u5$8@dont-email.me> <vbjq7d$1shml$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbka4u$1u1js$5@dont-email.me> <vbkd3g$1v4gn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbncue$2g6vo$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 02:47:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1470041"; 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: <vbncue$2g6vo$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5506
Lines: 87

On 9/9/24 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/8/2024 9:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-08 13:51:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/8/2024 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-07 13:51:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/7/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-06 11:20:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 5:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:58:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyone that is not dumber than a box of rocks can tell
>>>>>>>>> that machine address 0000217f is unreachable for every
>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
>>>>>>>>> x86 language where HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone who really knows either x86 assembly or machine langage or
>>>>>>>> C can see that the machine address 217f is unreachachable only if
>>>>>>>> the program at 000015d2, named HHH, does not return.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not exactly true. There is a directly executed HHH
>>>>>>> that always returns and a DDD emulated by HHH that calls
>>>>>>> an emulated HHH that never returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is only one DDD. The emulated DDD is the same as the directly
>>>>>> executed DDD. If HHH emulates someting else then that is not DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have conclusively proven that DDD, DD, D, PP and P
>>>>> do have different behavior within pathological relationships
>>>>> than outside of pathological relationships at least 1000
>>>>> times in the last three years.
>>>>
>>>> Saying "I have conclusively proven" wihtout actually proving anything
>>>> is not convincing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now there is a permanent link to the full file of the complete proof
>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD).pdf
>>
>> There is no proof in that file.
>>
> 
> That the execution trace of DDD emulated by HHH is proven
> by the x86 source code of DDD. That HHH correctly emulates
> itself emulating DDD is proven by the fact that the second
> execution trace provided by the emulated HHH matches the
> x86 source code of DDD. That DDD cannot possibly reach
> it "ret" instruction final halt state is proven by these
> two execution traces and the source-code of DDD.

No, that is NOT the exectution trace of the correct emulation of the 
input, because the correct emulation of the input traces through the 
instructions of HHH as it emulates its input (the input is not executed 
again until HHH returns).

The second execution trace just proves that you are LYING about what is 
happening, because that NEVER HAPPENS as actually executed code.

> 
> All this taken together proves that HHH had to abort its
> emulation of DDD to prevent the infinite execution of DDD.
> *Which proves that this criterion has been met*

Nope, just proves you are a liar.

> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>      stop running unless aborted then
> 
> 

Except that HHH never CORRECTLY determined that a CORRECT (and complete) 
emulation of *THIS* input would not halt, just that THIS HHH can't do it.