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: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Kicking the straw-man deception
 out on its ass
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 07:26:34 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <63d19e700e4605b304bc2217b682e269a15f84b7@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq2i40$ug75$3@dont-email.me> <vq2l9p$tth2$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq2m2p$vkkb$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b0a90e744f28e7dfe86481ba3eb5b438b6d2af4@i2pn2.org>
 <vq3073$vkkb$4@dont-email.me>
 <e0bf92b9f51cf5b361f14296b90c0392ac99054e@i2pn2.org>
 <vq3bdf$16jdc$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:26:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2643306"; 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: <vq3bdf$16jdc$2@dont-email.me>

On 3/2/25 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/2/2025 9:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/2/25 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2025 6:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/25 5:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2025 4:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 02.mrt.2025 om 22:21 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DD emulated by HHH according to the behavior that DD
>>>>>>> specifies cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
>>>>>>> and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This process computes the mapping from the actual input
>>>>>>> (not any other damn thing) finite string to the non
>>>>>>> terminating behavior that this finite specifies when
>>>>>>> it calls its own emulator in recursive emulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words 'non terminating behavior' means that *HHH* was 
>>>>>> unable to reach the 'ret' instruction. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. The fact that DD calls its own emulator
>>>>> makes DD unable to reach its own "ret" instruction.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it calls a specific emulator, that of a given HHH. There is no 
>>>> requirement for the program DD to be emulated by that program.
>>>>
>>>
>>> THE FACT THAT DD DOES CALL ITS OWN EMULATOR
>>> THE FACT THAT DD DOES CALL ITS OWN EMULATOR
>>> THE FACT THAT DD DOES CALL ITS OWN EMULATOR
>>> THE FACT THAT DD DOES CALL ITS OWN EMULATOR
>>
>> Which is just a LIE, 
> 
> Neither DD nor HHH need to know that DD is calling its
> own emulator. The non-terminating recursive emulation
> remains the same. HHH sees this behavior as infinite
> recursion having no idea that itself is involved.
> 
> (1) HHH emulates DD
> (2) DD calls HHH(DD)
> These facts prove that DD CALLS ITS OWN EMULATOR
> 


So, if HHH just emulated DD, then if fails to be a decider as it doesn't 
return.

You can't then change HHH to abort, and claim that is correct, as then 
you lied that you DD called the HHH that got the answer, since it calls 
a differnt HHH the didn't. When DD calls the HHH that gives the asnwer, 
as requried by your statements, then you first logic is just a lie.

Sorry, you are just showing that you don't even understand that logic 
needs to be based on known true statements, because you are just a 
pathological liar.