Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt
 ---Eternal-September-Failure
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:01:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <711c1b236a971e29f2cf49770c58f3ffb84d7a0c@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6ki9s$1iun6$1@dont-email.me>
 <a25a97dc4e7fc148f7cb89ed2bd58bdd0ffdfdd7@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ktv4$1o833$1@dont-email.me>
 <a43d2f6552ebd7301bacd9096088d453353bebe7@i2pn2.org>
 <Ld-dnRyg0MJiGhP7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:01:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2844748"; 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: <Ld-dnRyg0MJiGhP7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 4160
Lines: 74

On 7/10/24 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/10/2024 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/9/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002174] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
> 
>>
>> You are just proving you don't know what you are talking about.
>>
>> The emulation of DDD by HHH can't make it there, but the DDD that was 
>> emulated only a finite number of steps by HHH will, after the HHH 
>> aborts its emulation and returns to its caller (which was DDD).
> Anyone that sufficiently understands the semantics of
> the x86 language understands that:
> 
> *DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that*
> *correctly emulates 1 to ∞ steps of DDD can't make it*
> *past its own machine address 0000216b*

Nope, which just shows that you do not understand the x86 instruction 
set, or even how computers work.

First, no partial emulation is fully correct as part of the definiton of 
EVERY instruction you emulated, it that the next one in sequence WILL be 
executed. Since you had to break that rule to stop emulation.

Second, since we CAN look at the correct emulation of the input since we 
know the behavior of HHH (or at least what you claim its behavior to be) 
we can see that if HHH(DDD) does return, then DDD will halt. PERIOD.

if not, you have lied that HHH is a pure function.

All you can show is that the PARTIAL (and thus not fully correct) 
emulation done by HHH, doesn't reach that point, and when we compare 
that emulation to the actual COMPLETE emulation we see that HHH just 
gave up too soon, because its programmer was stupid and didn't understan 
how to do correct logic,

Remember, at any examination of this problem, HHH is just a single 
program, and doesn't change. If that instance does abort, it turns out 
to be incorrect. If that instance doesn't abort, we have a DIFFERENT 
input (using the differnt HHH) and that one should have been aborted, 
but wasn't, so HHH gets stuck never answering.

You problem is you accepted doing a problem that you can not solve, just 
like any version of Nim with a second player wins stratagy and you 
choose to go first.


> 
> No sense us ever talking about this again because you
> chose to either remain ignorant or lie and this isn't
> going to change.

YOU are the ignorant one. Try to show a reference for you claim.

> 
> You probably would not accept the view of any world
> class expert thus indicate that between ignorant
> and liar you would choose liar.
> 


You assume that ALL the world class experts must be wrong because they 
disagree with you.

That shows how narrow minded you are.