Path: ...!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: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 19:26:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <80ebfd233bf599468126ddf048190bd0799605bd@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 23:26:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2621133"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4122
Lines: 75

On 7/8/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/8/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-07 14:16:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>> Sufficient knowledge of the x86 language conclusively proves
>>> that the call from DDD correctly emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD)
>>> cannot possibly return for any pure function HHH.
>>
>> Suffifcient knowledge of the x86 language makes obvious that
>> DDD returns if and only if HHH returns.
>>
> 
> That is insufficient knowledge. Sufficient knowledge proves that
> DDD correctly simulated by HHH meets this criteria.

Nope, YOU have the insufficent knowledge, since you don't understand 
that the x86 language says programs are deterministic, and their 
behavior is fully establish when they are written, and running or 
simulating them is only a way to observe that behavior, and the only 
CORRECT observation of all the behavior, so letting that operation reach 
its final state.

> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>      stop running unless aborted then
> 
>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

And that means a simulation that exactly reproduces the behavior of the 
program represented by the input, something H neither does nor correctly 
predicts the behvior of such a simulation. It can't have, because that 
simulation halts if H returns the 0 answer you claim it does, so H can 
NEVER have correctly determined it doesn't.

> 
>> Whether a partial simulation of DDD simulates the return depends
>> on the simulator. 
> 
> That is false proving that you have insufficient knowledge.
> When DDD is correctly simulated by any pure function x86 emulator
> that aborts its emulation at some point calls HHH(DDD) this
> call never returns.

DDD returns,

The simulation of DDD by HHH doesn't reach that point.

You are so stupid you can't tell the diffference because you think your 
lies are truth.

> 
>> The code of DDD and x86 language don't tell
>> how much a simulator (not shown above) simulates.
>>
> 
> Correct analysis proves that does not matter. None of the N
> emulated instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH ever
> reach past the fourth instruction of DDD.
> 

Nope, just more of your lies, your "facts" are things that even YOU have 
proven to be false.