Path: ...!news.snarked.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 07:04:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9e4fbf536ccba32198cd7e8f00605165347a10da@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vqb6f4$2lue4$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqb6qr$2mueq$3@dont-email.me>
 <27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org>
 <vqcvu3$34c3r$5@dont-email.me>
 <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org>
 <vqdlqp$371bi$6@dont-email.me> <vqeceq$3epcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2bp$3j68u$4@dont-email.me> <vqh19v$2mh0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhj3n$5r7r$3@dont-email.me> <vqhm4q$6fo8$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqhs03$6vdc$5@dont-email.me> <vqig6a$bcd0$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqihd5$bcso$2@dont-email.me> <vqii7c$bcd0$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqiju2$bcso$4@dont-email.me>
 <f667993f66e38ce7610b933bbbf13508dfee1e23@i2pn2.org>
 <vqj1m3$ef0h$3@dont-email.me>
 <81f99208ab5ac8261e19355d54de31bb0ba8cdc6@i2pn2.org>
 <vqk4t4$o4oh$4@dont-email.me>
 <af6a3bd08f89f22772743f9e0946d5cb663ddbc4@i2pn2.org>
 <vqkqkk$sf7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <2c05662d218a25329eec1fb052e96758227d094c@i2pn2.org>
 <vql4uq$uv13$2@dont-email.me>
 <ce80c9dc3a24d0ab0257e871338b59945526b563@i2pn2.org>
 <vqll7i$11p4p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 11:04:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3714055"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vqll7i$11p4p$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10105
Lines: 191

On 3/9/25 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/9/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/9/25 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2025 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/25 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/9/2025 2:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/9/25 9:25 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/9/2025 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/8/25 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/25 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:01 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:01 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code proves otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A program does not prove. In particular, it does not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different program exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually does. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source code contains a finite sequence of truth 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving steps between axioms and a statement?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source code 100% completely specifies every single 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of exactly what it does on each specific input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying that it does not do this is counter-factual.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, the source code does not meet the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a proof, so your claim is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dumb Bunny:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Proof[0] is anything that shows that X is necessarily true*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *and thus impossibly false*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source-code in Halt7.c combined with the input to HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves every detail of the behavior of HHH on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input. Disagreeing this is either foolish or dishonest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a finite sequence of truth preserving steps 
>>>>>>>>>>>> between the axioms of a system and a true statement that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> show the statement is true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Proof[math] tries unsuccessfully to inherit from proof[0].
>>>>>>>>>>> I am stipulating that I have always been referring to proof[0].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I am pointing out that it IS the same, it is just that you 
>>>>>>>>>> don't understand that "Show" implies FINITE.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In that single aspect you are correct.
>>>>>>>>> Show that X is definitely true and thus impossibly false
>>>>>>>>> by any means what-so-ever is not proof[math].
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or proof[0], since you can not SHOW something "by any means" if 
>>>>>>>> those means are not showable due to not being finite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity by repeating your 
>>>>>>>>>> disproved claim.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you cannot understand the Halt7.c conclusively proves[0]
>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of HHH(DD) this is merely your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>> understanding and nothing more.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can understand what it does, as Halt7.c shows that the 
>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the input is to HALT since that is what DD will do 
>>>>>>>>>> when main calls it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU KNOW YOU WERE WRONG*
>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But The HHH You are talking about doesn't do a correct 
>>>>>>>> simulation, so this statment is not applicable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
>>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
>>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
>>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHich is *NOT* a program, as it has an external reference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong, because emulaiting for "N Steps" is NOT correctly emulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Correctly emulating N steps is emulating N steps correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Which is only partially emulating it correctly, and only partially 
>>>> correct is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone here that has sufficient technical competence can
>>>>> see that for any N steps of DD correctly emulated by HHH
>>>>> that DD cannot possibly reach its own final state and
>>>>> terminate normally.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So? As has been pointed out, since HHH can't do enough steps to get 
>>>> to the actual answer, it never CORRECTLY emulated the input enough 
>>>> to get the answer if it aborts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If HHH can see the same pattern that every competent
>>> programmer sees then HHH does not need to emulate DD
>>> more than twice to know that HHH cannot possibly reach
>>> its own final state and terminate normally.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The pattern that HHH sees is IDENTICAL to the pattern that HHH1 saw, 
>> up to the point it aborts.
>>
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========