Path: ...!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:15:42 +0000
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved
 criteria is met
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me> <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me>
 <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me> <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me> <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me>
 <v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me> <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org> <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de> <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v5el8c$24l4$4@news.muc.de> <v5evoi$1lgoi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5frvn$14bcm$6@i2pn2.org> <v5ft1p$1uc3o$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5fu24$14bcn$2@i2pn2.org> <v5fuf7$1up2o$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5fvvk$14bcn$4@i2pn2.org> <v5g1ue$1v8bm$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5g29u$14bcm$11@i2pn2.org> <v5g2nd$1v8bm$4@dont-email.me>
 <v5gsfv$15l89$2@i2pn2.org> <v5h5sd$24jbd$10@dont-email.me>
 <v5i8v9$17ej1$2@i2pn2.org> <v5i998$2cko8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5i9ot$17ej0$3@i2pn2.org> <v5ib7n$2cko8$4@dont-email.me>
 <v5ichc$17ej1$8@i2pn2.org>
From: Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 02:15:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.17
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <v5ichc$17ej1$8@i2pn2.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <5nSdnSkMN76jIOH7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 59
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-FgzC5EU8Cbl3f6h+2HCd1vYlAIAZYzgTmCDYW9Ll67avaMLb17p7Tivosd20TkNIxStPCgLC1/1fiSC!4yLNY7sCLhYfd9THu0KX5uNRlhW9MFbX3C5DdrvPSYc/kjMpYdl6sR3rDVH6T8QHqKZRk7uqXf38!ayxdnDPINljwS/HcQSr/KB3q4pkr
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4324

On 27/06/2024 01:42, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is not the way that it actually works.
>>>>>>>> That the the way that lies are defined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Source for you claim?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system to that claim?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I already told you that example does not count.
>>>>
>>>> I can't keep repeating those details or others
>>>> that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is
>>>> will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WHy not?
>>>
>>
>> We have already been over that you know that you cheated.
>>
> 
> Nope, since you didn't put in the rule, and if you had it would have shown that you lied, as if H0 
> is a pure function then the call to H0 emulated by H0 needs to have the same behaivor as the direct 
> call to H0 by main.

Incidentally, the nonconformance you're referring to is shown explicitly in the "195 page trace" 
that PO linked to.  [I.e. the simulated H does not correctly track the code path of the outer H.]

Mike.


> 
> Since it doesn't, either H0 is incorrect, or you don't have that rule (and your claim about H0 is 
> incorrect).