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: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:20:51 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <82c0c20d69cde057ad4eb609952c4be3ffd43a12@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrvsh4$p4vd$2@dont-email.me>
 <c93030bbd81fb313c76c256c6e54beb48b07dfdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vs1vuv$2ot1m$1@dont-email.me>
 <d2f86fad6c5823e3c098f30d331576c52263b398@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2fgn$354gv$5@dont-email.me>
 <61f821b5a18046ab36ddb6c52a003b574cf34de6@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2hnm$38lvq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9be1ff2af6bbf405565b27bc8211adf9f353e9f2@i2pn2.org>
 <vs44b6$qjc3$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ff8345ef2ddb51594c67cf7f5cbb81f696afbc5@i2pn2.org>
 <vs4per$1c1ja$5@dont-email.me>
 <8a8d4ac681ff887744c6a24e9c8f2777222da16f@i2pn2.org>
 <vs4st9$1c1ja$10@dont-email.me>
 <b7da0be84663018deae9e8d8b673b5d1e87b7de1@i2pn2.org>
 <vs50gb$1c1ja$14@dont-email.me>
 <6e702874c08a1f683fe9dd3afb88c66c37456d46@i2pn2.org>
 <vs6osm$39556$2@dont-email.me>
 <094949a5a2ac4dec2df1ab428d48137ef3c9d79f@i2pn2.org>
 <vs78i8$3ms9k$2@dont-email.me> <vs8g50$1227k$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs93if$1fccq$7@dont-email.me>
 <607f1a265c69f2d2c1c116e0d2ffaaea862d7a25@i2pn2.org>
 <vs9p21$27rl4$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:31:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2313829"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vs9p21$27rl4$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6000
Lines: 87

On 3/29/25 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2025 3:01 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:28:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/29/2025 4:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-28 22:41:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/25 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 8:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 9:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 4:56 PM, joes wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, HHH is not a correct simulator.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that it is not a correct simulator on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your ignorance of the x86 language that conclusively proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HHH does correctly simulate the first four instructions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD and correctly simulates itself simulating the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> four instructions of DDD.
>> The x86 language or my supposed ignorance thereof doesn't prove shit.
>> HHH does not simulate the infinite stack of recursive simulations,
>> for obvious reasons.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't a correct simulator,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You know that you are lying about this or you would show how DDD
>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH would reach its final state ACCORDING TO THE
>>>>>>>>>>> SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It can't be, because your HHH doesn't meet your requirement.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You cannot show that because you know you are lying about that.
>> One cannot show something impossible.
>>
>>>>>>>> Sure we can, make a main that directly calls HHH and then DDD, then
>>>>>>>> call HHH1(DDD)
>>>>>>>> That HHH will return 0, saying that DDD is non-halting, but the DDD
>>>>>>>> wll return, showing that DDD is halting.
>>>>>>>> Look at the trace that HHH generates, and that HHH1 generates,
>>>>>>>> HHH's will be a subset of the trace that HHH1 generates, showing
>>>>>>>> that it is NOT proof that this program is non-halting as that exact
>>>>>>>> same initial segment halts.
>>>>>>>> Your argument about changing HHH shows that it doesn't halt is just
>>>>>>>> invalid, as then you either changed the input, or demonstrated that
>>>>>>>> you input was a class error as it didn't contain the COMPLETE
>>>>>>>> representation of the code of DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't understand how that confused mess addresses the point of
>>>>>>> this thread:
>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the finite string of machine code of DDD
>>>>>>> emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language has
>>>>>>> different behavior than DDD emulated by HHH1 according to the
>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language.
>> Non sequitur.
>>
>>>>>> Where did you "verify" that LIE. You claim fails the simple test:
>>>>>> What is the first instruction actually correctly emulated by the
>>>>>> rules of the x86 language by HHH and HHH1 that had a different
>>>>>> result.
>>>>>>
>>>>> When DDD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) this call NEVER returns.
>>>>> When DDD emulated by HHH1 calls HHH(DDD) this call returns.
>>>>
>>>> When DDD is correctly emulated the call HHH(DDD) returns.
>>>>
>>> When are you going to understand that disagreeing with the semantics of
>>> the x86 language IS NOT ALLOWED?
>> Disagree with what semantics exactly? The call to HHH *must* return.
>>
> 
> Sure and any code placed inside of an infinite loop
> must magically break out of this loop.
> 

But there *IS* code in that loop to break out of it, the code in HHH 
that makes it (incorrect) decide that the input will not stop.

Your problem is you forget that the HHH that DDD calls is part of the 
program DDD.

It seems you just don't understamd the basics of programming, which is 
bad for someone who claims to have made a living by programming.

You are just showing your utter stupidity and ignorance of what you talk 
about.