Path: ...!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 --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:45:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7ab4502795ab1583e38687e478a4892bb4c0e0e5@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vqcvu3$34c3r$5@dont-email.me>
 <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org>
 <vqdlqp$371bi$6@dont-email.me> <vqeceq$3epcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2bp$3j68u$4@dont-email.me> <vqh19v$2mh0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhj3n$5r7r$3@dont-email.me> <vqhm4q$6fo8$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqhs03$6vdc$5@dont-email.me> <vqig6a$bcd0$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqihd5$bcso$2@dont-email.me> <vqii7c$bcd0$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqiju2$bcso$4@dont-email.me>
 <f667993f66e38ce7610b933bbbf13508dfee1e23@i2pn2.org>
 <vqj1m3$ef0h$3@dont-email.me>
 <81f99208ab5ac8261e19355d54de31bb0ba8cdc6@i2pn2.org>
 <vqk4t4$o4oh$4@dont-email.me>
 <af6a3bd08f89f22772743f9e0946d5cb663ddbc4@i2pn2.org>
 <vqkqkk$sf7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <2c05662d218a25329eec1fb052e96758227d094c@i2pn2.org>
 <vql4uq$uv13$2@dont-email.me>
 <ce80c9dc3a24d0ab0257e871338b59945526b563@i2pn2.org>
 <vqll7i$11p4p$1@dont-email.me>
 <9e4fbf536ccba32198cd7e8f00605165347a10da@i2pn2.org>
 <vqmrs2$1ckgi$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 22:45:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3793041"; 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: <vqmrs2$1ckgi$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 10138
Lines: 208

On 3/10/25 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/10/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/9/25 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/25 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/9/2025 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/9/25 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/9/2025 2:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/9/25 9:25 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2025 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/25 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/25 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:01 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:01 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code proves otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A program does not prove. In particular, it does not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different program exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually does. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source code contains a finite sequence of truth 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving steps between axioms and a statement?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source code 100% completely specifies every single 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of exactly what it does on each specific input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying that it does not do this is counter-factual.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, the source code does not meet the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a proof, so your claim is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dumb Bunny:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Proof[0] is anything that shows that X is necessarily true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *and thus impossibly false*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source-code in Halt7.c combined with the input to HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves every detail of the behavior of HHH on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input. Disagreeing this is either foolish or dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a finite sequence of truth preserving steps 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the axioms of a system and a true statement that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show the statement is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof[math] tries unsuccessfully to inherit from proof[0].
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am stipulating that I have always been referring to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof[0].
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I am pointing out that it IS the same, it is just that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't understand that "Show" implies FINITE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In that single aspect you are correct.
>>>>>>>>>>> Show that X is definitely true and thus impossibly false
>>>>>>>>>>> by any means what-so-ever is not proof[math].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> or proof[0], since you can not SHOW something "by any means" 
>>>>>>>>>> if those means are not showable due to not being finite.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity by repeating your 
>>>>>>>>>>>> disproved claim.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you cannot understand the Halt7.c conclusively proves[0]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of HHH(DD) this is merely your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding and nothing more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can understand what it does, as Halt7.c shows that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of the input is to HALT since that is what DD 
>>>>>>>>>>>> will do when main calls it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU KNOW YOU WERE WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>>>>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But The HHH You are talking about doesn't do a correct 
>>>>>>>>>> simulation, so this statment is not applicable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHich is *NOT* a program, as it has an external reference.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong, because emulaiting for "N Steps" is NOT correctly emulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correctly emulating N steps is emulating N steps correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is only partially emulating it correctly, and only partially 
>>>>>> correct is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everyone here that has sufficient technical competence can
>>>>>>> see that for any N steps of DD correctly emulated by HHH
>>>>>>> that DD cannot possibly reach its own final state and
>>>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So? As has been pointed out, since HHH can't do enough steps to 
>>>>>> get to the actual answer, it never CORRECTLY emulated the input 
>>>>>> enough to get the answer if it aborts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If HHH can see the same pattern that every competent
>>>>> programmer sees then HHH does not need to emulate DD
>>>>> more than twice to know that HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>>> its own final state and terminate normally.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The pattern that HHH sees is IDENTICAL to the pattern that HHH1 saw, 
>>>> up to the point it aborts.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========