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
Subject: Re: III correctly emulated by EEE ---
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 21:22:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <803bd062b0eb7345e153adbb3b76eea1a0307a18@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrkumg$2l2ci$2@dont-email.me>
 <ba957e964c1090cbb801b1688b951ac095281737@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmepa$2r2l$1@dont-email.me>
 <d8ee6d675850304b99af1b587437ba0ac64dbb85@i2pn2.org>
 <vrms64$cvat$2@dont-email.me>
 <76e394abe71be9cdc7f1948e73352c4f76ae409e@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmua7$cvat$8@dont-email.me>
 <dc633a07cd15e2c80ed98083cc5f9d218edcc9da@i2pn2.org>
 <vro0hk$1c9ia$1@dont-email.me>
 <9adf9b9c30250aaa2d3142509036c892db2b7096@i2pn2.org>
 <vrpfua$2qbhf$2@dont-email.me>
 <211f9a2a284cb2deaa666f424c1ef826fe855e80@i2pn2.org>
 <vrq330$3dq3n$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7268e8ef47579cacb49b0533d51549a77eb0b96@i2pn2.org>
 <vrqb6f$3k9kh$2@dont-email.me>
 <3f250e699762cfe6fccc844f10eb04f32d470b6a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrrpcl$11a56$4@dont-email.me>
 <8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org>
 <vru6in$38ob9$3@dont-email.me>
 <a81b9021e9b676c568d12f8e9fa9d27a0e7f4c07@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvs8b$p4vd$1@dont-email.me>
 <b4513778f4d273817c0b3f5bf20955e6e23aab0f@i2pn2.org>
 <vs20o1$2ot1m$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 01:22:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1909171"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vs20o1$2ot1m$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 3/26/25 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/26/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/25/25 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2025 7:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/25 8:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/24/2025 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/24/25 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/24/2025 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/23/25 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2025 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/25 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2025 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/25 1:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2025 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/25 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/25 2:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 11:37 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:43:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no program DDD in the above code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is also no Infinite_Recursion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since no Turing machine M can ever compute the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping from the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of any directly executed TM2 referring to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed DDD has always been incorrect. Halt 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deciders always report on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior that their input finite string specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please explain what behaviour the description of a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM "specifies",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and which TM the input describes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill sang a song" describes what Bill did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tape recording of Bill singing that same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> song completely specifies what Bill did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what a UTM does with this input completely 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies its behavior,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case that does not involve pathological 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self- reference the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that the finite string specifies is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coincidentally the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior as the direct execution of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding machine. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual measure, however, has always been the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that the finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string input specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...which is the direct execution. Not much of a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coincidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _III()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any correct emulator EEE correctly emulates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite number of steps of an input III that calls this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same emulator to emulate itself the behavior of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of III will not be the same as the behavior of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the emulated III.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Becuase a finite emulation that stop before the end is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a correct emulation 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you keep dishonestly trying to get away 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreeing with the law of identity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When N steps are III are correctly emulated by EEE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then N steps are III are correctly emulated by EEE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't the same as the CORRECT emulation that shows 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if the program being emulated will halt/.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There exists no Natural Number N number of steps of III
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by EEE where III reaches its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own "ret" instruction and terminates normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you agree that the recursive emulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a single finite string of x86 machine code single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address [00002172] cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own machine address [00002183]when emulated by emulator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EEE according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it isn't a single finite string of x86 machince code, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of verified fact it is a single finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> string of machine code at a fixed offset in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt7.obj file.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, because DEFINTIONALLY, to correctly emulate it, you 
>>>>>>>>>>>> need ALL of it (at least all seen by the emulator) and thus 
>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't change the parts seen and still be talking about 
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your claim just shows you are a patholgical liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You can not "correctly emulate" the code of just the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> function, you need the rest of the code, which mean you 
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't do the variations you talk about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> x86utm operates on a compiled object file that
>>>>>>>>>>> is stored in a single location of global memory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, and thus you must consider *ALL* of that memory as the 
>>>>>>>>>> input, so if you change it, it is a different input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You haven't yet noticed that all posts with this title
>>>>>>>>> [III correctly emulated by EEE] are talking about a pure
>>>>>>>>> emulator that emulates a finite number of instructions of III.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is just a strawman, and a contradiction, as the definition 
>>>>>>>> of "correct emulation" (to be able to use it in the halting 
>>>>>>>> problem as a surrogate for the programs behavior) must be complete.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _III()
>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III
>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III)
>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========