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,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 22:36:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6d6808c203a1946042da8080e623f0b4eef4cea6@i2pn2.org>
References: <1021ii4$3327l$6@dont-email.me>
 <3fded8d2a57749379aedf050e3f99925918ae78e@i2pn2.org>
 <TPc1Q.195398$0ia.56815@fx11.ams4>
 <7db54ccb7f3273c5a93f8ee645b8c7a324fa1a40@i2pn2.org>
 <j3h1Q.527593$6Qab.264340@fx07.ams4>
 <f83a4eb399dc22af898afae287b457de278f0aa5@i2pn2.org>
 <FVj1Q.155535$vK4b.26412@fx09.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 02:42:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3901545"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <FVj1Q.155535$vK4b.26412@fx09.ams4>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 6/8/25 1:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 13:24:45 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
> 
>> On 6/8/25 10:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 07:08:06 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/8/25 5:35 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 18:56:09 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/7/25 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence of DDD
>>>>>>> emulated by HHH from DDD emulated by HHH1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it doesn't, all you are doing is showing you don't know what an
>>>>>> execution trace needs to show, because "correct" seems to be a
>>>>>> foreign word to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>       HHH1(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shows that DDD emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by HHH1 diverges as
>>>>>>> soon as HHH begins emulating itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But never correctly emulates the CALL instruction, as REQUIRED to be
>>>>>> a correct emulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, to even do that you first need to fix the input, as the input
>>>>>> you give is IMPOSSIBLE to "correctly emulate" as the correct
>>>>>> emulation of the call HHH instruction will requiring knowing the
>>>>>> contents of 000015c3 (the code of the function HHH) but that
>>>>>> infomation is not available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From the execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shown below*
>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH [00002183]
>>>>>>> push ebp               [00002183] push ebp [00002184] mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [00002184] mov ebp,esp [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186]
>>>>>>> push 00002183 ; DDD [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b]
>>>>>>> call 000015c3 ; HHH *HHH1 emulates DDD once then HHH emulates DDD
>>>>>>> once,
>>>>>>> these match*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And NEITHER of the following is a correct emulation of the input, as
>>>>>> per the definition of the call instruction, the next instruction to
>>>>>> be processed will be at location 000015c3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, all you are doing is proving your stupidity, as you clearly
>>>>>> don't understand teh meaning of the words you are using, even when
>>>>>> they have been explained to you many timees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you just want to prove to the world that you are just a
>>>>>> stupid liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at the machine
>>>>>>> address of 00002183.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> WRONG. I guess you are just asserting that it is ok to just LIE
>>>>>> about what is happening, and that either your HHH is just not
>>>>>> emulating itself as you claim (and thus it is a lie) or you are just
>>>>>> misresenting what it is doing, by omitting the stes in that proof
>>>>>> that shows
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at the machine
>>>>>>> address of 00002190.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, not by your above definition, as if the emulator can claim its
>>>>>> input is doing what the emulation of an emulator is seeing, then it
>>>>>> should see exactly the same thing as above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, the HHH that HHH is emulating is a DIFFERENT execution
>>>>>> context, and thus aren't both by the "HHH" that is doing the
>>>>>> deciding, but can only be shown under the guise of a simulation of a
>>>>>> simulation shows that simulated code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is in your LYING editing of the traces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 00002183 != 00002190
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>> [00002183] 55             push ebp [00002184] 8bec           mov
>>>>>>> ebp,esp [00002186] 6883210000     push 00002183 ; push DDD
>>>>>>> [0000218b] e833f4ffff     call 000015c3 ; call HHH [00002190]
>>>>>>> 83c404         add esp,+04 [00002193] 5d             pop ebp
>>>>>>> [00002194] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002194]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _main()
>>>>>>> [000021a3] 55             push ebp [000021a4] 8bec           mov
>>>>>>> ebp,esp [000021a6] 6883210000     push 00002183 ; push DDD
>>>>>>> [000021ab] e843f3ffff     call 000014f3 ; call HHH1 [000021b0]
>>>>>>> 83c404 add esp,+04 [000021b3] 33c0           xor eax,eax [000021b5]
>>>>>>> 5d pop ebp [000021b6] c3             ret Size in bytes:(0020)
>>>>>>> [000021b6]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly address
>>>>>>>      address   data      code       language ========  ========
>>>>>>>      ========  ========== =============
>>>>>>> <main is executed>
>>>>>>> [000021a3][0010382d][00000000] 55         push ebp      ; main()
>>>>>>> [000021a4][0010382d][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; main()
>>>>>>> [000021a6][00103829][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; push DDD
>>>>>>> [000021ab][00103825][000021b0] e843f3ffff call 000014f3 ; call HHH1
>>>>>>> </main is executed>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038d1 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>>>>>>> Execution Trace Stored at:1138d9
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <DDD emulated by HHH1>
>>>>>>> [00002183][001138c9][001138cd] 55         push ebp      ; DDD of
>>>>>>> HHH1 [00002184][001138c9][001138cd] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; DDD
>>>>>>> of HHH1 [00002186][001138c5][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ;
>>>>>>> push DDD [0000218b][001138c1][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ;
>>>>>>> call HHH </DDD emulated by HHH1>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:14e2f9 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>>>>>>> Execution Trace Stored at:15e301
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <DDD emulated by HHH>
>>>>>>> [00002183][0015e2f1][0015e2f5] 55         push ebp      ; DDD of
>>>>>>> HHH[0] [00002184][0015e2f1][0015e2f5] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ;
>>>>>>> DDD of HHH[0] [00002186][0015e2ed][00002183] 6883210000 push
>>>>>>> 00002183 ;
>>>>>>> push DDD [0000218b][0015e2e9][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ;
>>>>>>> call HHH <DDD emulated by HHH>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:198d21  DDD emulated by HHH *This is the
>>>>>>> beginning of the divergence of the behavior*
>>>>>>> *HHH is emulating itself emulating DDD, HHH1 never does that*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <DDD emulated by HHH emulating itself>
>>>>>>> [00002183][001a8d19][001a8d1d] 55         push ebp      ; DDD of
>>>>>>> HHH[1] [00002184][001a8d19][001a8d1d] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ;
>>>>>>> DDD of HHH[1] [00002186][001a8d15][00002183] 6883210000 push
>>>>>>> 00002183 ;
>>>>>>> push DDD [0000218b][001a8d11][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ;
>>>>>>> call HHH </DDD emulated by HHH emulating itself>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>>> HHH returns to caller
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <DDD emulated by HHH1>
>>>>>>> [00002190][001138c9][001138cd] 83c404     add esp,+04 ; DDD of HHH1
>>>>>>> [00002193][001138cd][000015a8] 5d         pop ebp     ; DDD of HHH1
>>>>>>> [00002194][001138d1][0003a980] c3         ret         ; DDD of HHH1
>>>>>>> </DDD emulated by HHH1>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <main is executed>
>>>>>>> [000021b0][0010382d][00000000] 83c404     add esp,+04 ; main()
>>>>>>> [000021b3][0010382d][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax ; main()
>>>>>>> [000021b5][00103831][00000018] 5d         pop ebp     ; main()
>>>>>>> [000021b6][00103835][00000000] c3         ret         ; main()
>>>>>>> </main is executed>
>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(352831) == 5266 Pages
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ## 🧠 **Summary of Argument**
>>>>>
>>>>> **Olcott** claims:
>>>>>
>>>>> * That `HHH1(DDD)` and `HHH(DDD)` simulate `DDD` differently.
>>>>> * The divergence starts when `HHH` recursively begins simulating
>>>>> itself simulating `DDD`.
>>>>> * Therefore, this behavior implies that `DDD` does not halt, and this
>>>>> non- halting is correctly detected by `HHH`.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Damon** replies:
>>>>>
>>>>> * The simulation is invalid unless it correctly simulates the machine
>>>>> behavior, specifically how the `CALL` instruction should behave.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========