Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:50:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6e702874c08a1f683fe9dd3afb88c66c37456d46@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrrpcl$11a56$4@dont-email.me>
 <8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org>
 <vrt3gv$264jb$4@dont-email.me>
 <448c82acff6b5fc1d2aa266be92df6f778ec2c6a@i2pn2.org>
 <vru5tp$38ob9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ac61f679d7ddb39b0ceaedd7f562899d36346535@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvccp$aq8m$3@dont-email.me>
 <e166831a8e02332d64ec151f61481e2629e6e53a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvsh4$p4vd$2@dont-email.me>
 <c93030bbd81fb313c76c256c6e54beb48b07dfdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vs1vuv$2ot1m$1@dont-email.me>
 <d2f86fad6c5823e3c098f30d331576c52263b398@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2fgn$354gv$5@dont-email.me>
 <61f821b5a18046ab36ddb6c52a003b574cf34de6@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2hnm$38lvq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9be1ff2af6bbf405565b27bc8211adf9f353e9f2@i2pn2.org>
 <vs44b6$qjc3$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ff8345ef2ddb51594c67cf7f5cbb81f696afbc5@i2pn2.org>
 <vs4per$1c1ja$5@dont-email.me>
 <8a8d4ac681ff887744c6a24e9c8f2777222da16f@i2pn2.org>
 <vs4st9$1c1ja$10@dont-email.me>
 <b7da0be84663018deae9e8d8b673b5d1e87b7de1@i2pn2.org>
 <vs50gb$1c1ja$14@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:03:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2120767"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vs50gb$1c1ja$14@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5245
Lines: 80

On 3/27/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/27/2025 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/27/25 9:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2025 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/25 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/2025 4:56 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:10:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/26/25 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 10:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/25 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final staste 
>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> if an unbounded number of steps are emulated. Since HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't do
>>>>>>>>>>>> that, it isn't showing non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its final state in an
>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>> But DDD emulated by an actually correct emulator will,
>>>>>>>>> If you were not intentionally persisting in a lie you would
>>>>>>>>> acknowledge the dead obvious that DDD emulated by HHH according 
>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly correctly reach its
>>>>>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>> _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]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, HHH is not a correct simulator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You say that it is not a correct simulator on the basis
>>>>> of your ignorance of the x86 language that conclusively
>>>>> proves that HHH does correctly simulate the first four
>>>>> instructions of DDD and correctly simulates itself
>>>>> simulating the first four instructions of DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It isn't a correct simulator, 
>>>
>>> You know that you are lying about this or you would
>>> show how DDD emulated by HHH would reach its final state
>>> ACCORDING TO THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It can't be, because your HHH doesn't meet your requirement.
>>
> 
> You cannot show that because you know you are lying about that.
> 

Sure we can, make a main that directly calls HHH and then DDD, then call 
HHH1(DDD)

That HHH will return 0, saying that DDD is non-halting, but the DDD wll 
return, showing that DDD is halting.

Look at the trace that HHH generates, and that HHH1 generates, HHH's 
will be a subset of the trace that HHH1 generates, showing that it is 
NOT proof that this program is non-halting as that exact same initial 
segment halts.

Your argument about changing HHH shows that it doesn't halt is just 
invalid, as then you either changed the input, or demonstrated that you 
input was a class error as it didn't contain the COMPLETE representation 
of the code of DDD.

Sorry, This is what you have been told for years, but you refuse to look 
at the truth, because you have been brainwashed by your lies.

Look