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 INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as
 non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken logic
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 19:35:11 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <98100c9a2dadf7dfa5fc97ca68599894466690f5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me>
 <8a6e6d9ff49aabe2525ce5729a439c807de4768a@i2pn2.org>
 <34Ocnd4voeWlDAn7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v725d7$hlvg$1@dont-email.me>
 <aa7643b6d8c46d2c4dd5ef92ae3650afe114adbb@i2pn2.org>
 <v734ct$mjis$2@dont-email.me>
 <056325e336f81a50f4fb9e60f90934eaac823d22@i2pn2.org>
 <v73gk2$obtd$1@dont-email.me>
 <e2958e7ea04d53590c79b53bfb4bc9dff468772b@i2pn2.org>
 <v742r2$s48s$2@dont-email.me>
 <210383b2ee318f68a96d94aec314ee8b93f79b7f@i2pn2.org>
 <v75u22$19j7l$4@dont-email.me>
 <fde630817c49562bc765bdbc98e16a1582bcad53@i2pn2.org>
 <v78mda$1smtm$2@dont-email.me> <v7d5cl$2t3ja$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ds0o$30pvh$3@dont-email.me> <v7fs29$3f4g7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7gd17$3hlc2$2@dont-email.me> <v7ikn4$1jv5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7j2pg$3o7r$3@dont-email.me> <v7l3di$idv1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lnrf$luh0$1@dont-email.me> <v7niqp$13ghd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7obbn$17h8r$1@dont-email.me>
 <2eecnR6fa9XiWzz7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v7tlin$2acgd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 23:35:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="358775"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7tlin$2acgd$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 15079
Lines: 306

On 7/25/24 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/24/2024 10:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 23/07/2024 14:31, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/23/2024 1:32 AM, 0 wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-22 13:46:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/22/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-21 13:34:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/21/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-20 13:11:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we use your incorrect reasoning we would conclude
>>>>>>>>>>> that Infinite_Loop() is not an infinite loop because it
>>>>>>>>>>> only repeats until aborted and is aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You and your HHH can reason or at least conclude correctly about
>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop but not about DDD. Possibly because it prefers to
>>>>>>>>>> say "no", which is correct about Infinte_loop but not about DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Because this is true I don't understand how you are not simply 
>>>>>>>>> lying*
>>>>>>>>> int main
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    DDD();
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input
>>>>>>>>> or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are the lying one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If HHH(DDD) abrots its simulation and returns true it is correct 
>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>> halt decider for DDD really halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) We know that a decider is not allowed to report on the behavior
>>>>>>> computation that itself is contained within.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, we don't. There is no such prohibition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Turing machines never take actual Turing machines as inputs.
>>>>> They only take finite strings as inputs and an actual executing
>>>>> Turing machine is not itself a finite string.
>>>>
>>>> The definition of a Turing machine does not say that a Turing machine
>>>> is not a finite string. It is an abstract mathematical object without
>>>> a specification of its exact nature. It could be a set or a finite
>>>> string. Its exact nature is not relevant to the theory of computation,
>>>> which only cares about certain properties of Turing machines.
>>>>
>>>>> Therefore It is not allowed to report on its own behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, that does not follow. The theory of Turing machines does not
>>>> prohibit anything.
>>>>
>>>>> Another different TM can take the TM description of this
>>>>> machine and thus accurately report on its actual behavior.
>>>>
>>>> If a Turing machine can take a description of a TM as its input
>>>> or as a part of its input it can also take its own description.
>>>> Every Turing machine can be given its own description as input
>>>> but a Turing machine may interprete it as something else.
>>>>
>>> In this case we have two x86utm machines that are identical
>>> except that DDD calls HHH and DDD does not call HHH1.
>>>
>>> It is empirically proven that this changes their behavior
>>> and the behavior of DDD.
>>>
>>
>> You say a lot about things that are "empirically proven" and without 
>> exception they are never "proven" at all.
>>
> 
> It is empirically proven according to the semantics of the
> x86 machine code of DDD that DDD correctly emulated by HHH
> has different behavior than DDD correctly emulated by HHH1.

No, it is a clearly proven statement that you don't understand what the 
correct emulation of a CALL insttuction is in the x86 machince code 
language.

Which just show that you are nothing but a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.


> 
> _DDD()
> [00002177] 55         push ebp
> [00002178] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [0000217a] 6877210000 push 00002177
> [0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d7
> [00002184] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002187] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002188] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002188]
> 
> _main()
> [00002197] 55         push ebp
> [00002198] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [0000219a] 6877210000 push 00002177
> [0000219f] e863f3ffff call 00001507
> [000021a4] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [000021a7] 33c0       xor eax,eax
> [000021a9] 5d         pop ebp
> [000021aa] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0020) [000021aa]
> 
>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>   address   address   data      code       language
>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> [00002197][001037fb][00000000] 55         push ebp
> [00002198][001037fb][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [0000219a][001037f7][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
> [0000219f][001037f3][000021a4] e863f3ffff call 00001507 ; call HHH1
> New slave_stack at:10389f
> 
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138a7
> [00002177][00113897][0011389b] 55         push ebp
> [00002178][00113897][0011389b] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [0000217a][00113893][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
> [0000217f][0011388f][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
> New slave_stack at:14e2c7
> 
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:15e2cf
> [00002177][0015e2bf][0015e2c3] 55         push ebp
> [00002178][0015e2bf][0015e2c3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [0000217a][0015e2bb][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
> [0000217f][0015e2b7][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
> New slave_stack at:198cef
> [00002177][001a8ce7][001a8ceb] 55         push ebp
> [00002178][001a8ce7][001a8ceb] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [0000217a][001a8ce3][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
> [0000217f][001a8cdf][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
> 
> [00002184][00113897][0011389b] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002187][0011389b][000015bc] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002188][0011389f][0003a980] c3         ret
> [000021a4][001037fb][00000000] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [000021a7][001037fb][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax
> [000021a9][001037ff][00000018] 5d         pop ebp
> [000021aa][00103803][00000000] c3         ret
> Number of Instructions Executed(352831) == 5266 Pages
> 
>> You previously claimed that H and H1 behaviours were different as 
>> evidence that "copies of routines" don't necessarily produce the same 
>> behaviour as the original routine, due to magical pathelogical 
>> relationships.  But if the copies are done properly of course they 
>> will produce the same behaviour, because the x86 language is 
>> deterministic. I'm assuming you're not just cheating and using the 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========