Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal by Olcott---
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 23:19:59 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9f3112e056ad6eebf35f940c34b802b46addcad4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7led6$kacj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lsg5$luh0$5@dont-email.me> <v7nm9m$1433k$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ofe7$17h8r$6@dont-email.me> <v7qfu0$1m6vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7r040$1onhe$3@dont-email.me> <v7vlbj$2ofet$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80a2u$2rabc$4@dont-email.me> <v825jo$39i9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82u9d$3dftr$3@dont-email.me> <v8306v$3c7$1@news.muc.de>
 <v83161$3dftr$11@dont-email.me> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bc6j$159av$1@dont-email.me>
 <ea673a5b4ed43fbddf938c69bd013b0cf2ca325d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8c6kb$1de3l$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 03:19:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="931475"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v8c6kb$1de3l$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4686
Lines: 85

On 7/30/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/30/2024 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/30/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/28/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-27 14:45:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/27/2024 9:28 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/27/2024 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> If a simulator correctly simulates a finite number of instructions
>>>>>>>> where x86 program specifies an execution of an infinite number of
>>>>>>>> instructions then the simulation deviates from x86 semantics at the
>>>>>>>> point where the simulation stops but the x86 semantics specify
>>>>>>>> countinuation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words you believe that instead of recognizing a
>>>>>>> non-halting behavior pattern, then aborting the simulation
>>>>>>> and rejecting the input as non-halting the termination
>>>>>>> analyzer should just get stuck in recursive simulation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're doing it again.  "In other words" is here a lie; you've just
>>>>>> replaced Mikko's words with something very different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He just said that the simulation of a non-terminating input
>>>>> is incorrect unless it is simulated forever.
>>>>
>>>> I said it deviates form the x86 semantics. I didn't say whether it is
>>>> incorrect to deviate from x86 semantics. 
>>>
>>> The measure of DDD correctly emulated by HHH
>>>     until HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD would never
>>>      stop running unless aborted...
>>>
>>> is that the emulation of DDD by HHH
>>> *DOES NOT DEVIATE FROM THE X86 SEMANTICS*
>>
>> Which frst means it must emulate per the x86 semantics, which means 
> 
> 
>> the call to HHH must be followed by the emulation of the x86 
>> instructions of  HHH, not something else.
>>
> 
> *The call to HHH HAS ALWAYS BEEN FREAKING FOLLOWED*
> *by the emulation of the x86 instructions of HHH*

Then why don't you show it then

> 
> It seems best proven by this source-code
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> 
> This level of detail was never required because we
> could always see from the trace of DDD that it must
> have been a call to an x86 emulator or we would
> never have gotten to the first line of DDD again.
> 
> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
> We can see from the first page of the trace on
> page 38 of the file that DDD calls HHH(DDD) and
> the next line is the address of HHH.

But that call is from MAIN not DDD.

The trace on page 38 begins at address 00002197, which looking at the 
listing on the previous page, shows that this is the address of main, 
not DDD, which is at 00002177.

You STILL haven't got it right. This is the trace of your x86utm system 
running HHH, not the trace of HHH simulating DDD.


> 
> The next call to HHH from the emulated HHH emulating
> DDD calling another HHH(DDD) is more complicated.
> Each emulated instruction has a bunch of emulator
> instructions inbetween.
> 
> 

But you are just lying about what that trace is, and who created it, so 
NOTHING can be believed.

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity,