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
Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 19:39:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7ac06ec3846fe33e1316c4101321de546cbe77fb@i2pn2.org>
References: <vajdta$2qe9s$1@dont-email.me> <vak3a0$2teq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vakhnf$302rl$2@dont-email.me> <vampgq$3dl83$3@dont-email.me>
 <van46p$3f6c0$6@dont-email.me> <van671$3fgd3$4@dont-email.me>
 <van6um$3foem$4@dont-email.me> <vandsl$3grf3$3@dont-email.me>
 <vaneq4$3h3es$1@dont-email.me> <vani7u$3hh2l$1@dont-email.me>
 <vaniq2$3hnvu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 23:39:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="74090"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vaniq2$3hnvu$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6904
Lines: 138

On 8/28/24 12:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/28/2024 11:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 17:13 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/28/2024 9:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:59 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 8/28/2024 7:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/28/2024 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 27.aug.2024 om 14:44 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2024 3:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.aug.2024 om 04:33 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> This is intended to be a stand-alone post that does not
>>>>>>>>>>> reference anything else mentioned in any other posts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we assume that:
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) HHH is an x86 emulator that is in the same memory space 
>>>>>>>>>>> as DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) HHH emulates DDD according to the semantics of the x86 
>>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> then we can see that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly get 
>>>>>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>>>>>> its own machine address 0000217a.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we see. In fact DDD is not needed at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the 
>>>>>>>>> informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one 
>>>>>>>>> actually under discussion...
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apparently you do not even understand the English that is used 
>>>>>>>> to describe the straw man fallacy.
>>>>>>>> Or are trying to distract the attention from the fact that DDD 
>>>>>>>> is not needed is a simple truism, a tautology in your terms?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When 100% of the whole point is for HHH to correctly determine
>>>>>>> whether or not DDD would stop running if not aborted
>>>>>>> *IT IS RIDICULOUSLY STUPID TO SAY THAT DDD IS NOT NEEDED*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Acting ridiculously stupid when on is not stupid at all
>>>>>>> cannot be reasonably construed as anything besides a sadistic
>>>>>>> head game.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> When without DDD it is clear as crystal that HHH cannot possibly 
>>>>>> simulate itself correctly:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Damned Liar !!!
>>>>
>>>> I will ignore this, because I know how difficult it is for you to 
>>>> accept the truth.
>>>>
>>>>> I have told you too many times that correct simulation
>>>>> is simply obeying the semantics of the 86 language for
>>>>> whatever the x86 input finite string specifies.
>>>>
>>>> You may repeat it many more times, but HHH violated the semantics of 
>>>> the x86 language by skipping the last few instructions of a halting 
>>>> program. This finite string, when given for direct execution, shows 
>>>> a halting behaviour. This is the proof what the semantics of the x86 
>>>> language means for this finite string: a halting program.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the x86 string tells the computer to catch on fire and
>>>>> the computer catches on fire then this proves that the
>>>>> emulation was correct.
>>>>
>>>> And when the x86 string tells the computer that there is a halting 
>>>> program and the simulator decides that there is a non-halting 
>>>> program, this proves that the simulation is incorrect.
>>>> Clear as crystal: the semantics of the x86 string is proved by its 
>>>> direct execution.
>>>> This is shown in the example below, where the direct execution of 
>>>> HHH halts, but HHH decides that it does not halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> By this same reasoning that fact that you are no longer hungry
>>> AFTER you have eaten proves that you never needed to eat.
>>
>> No, again, you do not understand what It said.
>>
>>>
>>> The behavior of DDD before HHH aborts its simulation
>>> (before it has eaten) it not the same behavior after
>>> DDD has been aborted (after it has eaten).
>>>
>>
>> If hungry stands for fear for infinite recursion 
> 
> hungry stands for will not stop running unless aborted
> just like
> will remain hungry until eating is always true whenever hungry

And thus the error of your analogy is exposed.

Eating removes the state of hunger.

Aborting a simulation does nor remove the need for that programs 
simulation to need to be aborted, ALL copies of it will still need to be 
aborted.

You seem to have a funny-mental problem aobut programs, not 
understanding that they are not volitialional entities, but are just 
deterministic algorithms that do exactly as they are programmed.


> 
>> and eating stands for aborting, then both the simulating HHH and the 
>> simulated HHH are hungry and both are coded to eat. But the simulating 
>> HHH kills the simulated HHH before the simulated HHH could eat, which 
>> does not prove that it would not have eaten if not killed.
>> There was no need to kill the simulated HHH, because it also knows how 
>> to eat.
>>
>> You seem to think that if the simulated HHH was not killed, it would 
>> have eaten. But it knows how to eat, because that is how it is coded.
> 
>