Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!s1-2.netnews.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!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: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:28:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vri5mn$6nv4$1@dont-email.me>
 <8354fe5751e03a767452a3999818d5c6da714a6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrigh6$f35v$1@dont-email.me> <vrj6d3$14iuu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjog0$1ilbe$6@dont-email.me>
 <db8aa67218b2a0990cd1df38aca29dbd3930e145@i2pn2.org>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 01:28:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1621106"; 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: <vrrpcl$11a56$4@dont-email.me>
X-Received-Bytes: 8899
Bytes: 9069
Lines: 164

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]
> 
> You continue to look increasingly foolish when you
> try to keep getting away with denying that III
> calls EEE(III) in recursive emulation.
> 

But I don't deny it, just point out that it is irrelevent, since none of 
your variations of HHH get that same input, as the input *MUST* include 
the code of the function that DDD/III calls, and thus they will be 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========