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: behavior and description --- All of the code is here it is just
 hard to find (No its not, no HHH given)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:03:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a027cdb2987680e55545520eaf760a8c1bb328c3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8tcqm$1l0av$1@dont-email.me>
 <9cdb7748ed3906718c6fa7354c81479c24c76885@i2pn2.org>
 <v8tlov$1nl6s$1@dont-email.me>
 <98c9d58d07784afeb7df85b85d468edc2c5a82ab@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ujp7$20c5q$1@dont-email.me>
 <931e370770170d2392a73c564552d84270526201@i2pn2.org>
 <v8uncm$255gv$2@dont-email.me>
 <15ded861fa978eb287e35a859118e7ed48ae6d84@i2pn2.org>
 <v8uoj6$25e3e$1@dont-email.me>
 <e622a920b2fbcce6b0d18be5a0265aa16ec4c7b5@i2pn2.org>
 <v8uqns$25lht$1@dont-email.me>
 <e3665dd986f538a33e981d1ca531ccba855f2790@i2pn2.org>
 <v8vr2q$32fso$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 01:03:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1814287"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v8vr2q$32fso$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 11063
Lines: 246

On 8/7/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/7/2024 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/6/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/6/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/6/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/6/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/6/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/6/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2024 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/6/2024 12:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 06 Aug 2024 09:43:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Understanding that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own "return" instruction is a mandatory prerequisite to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing to discuss after agreeing with your 
>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone remains convinced that HHH must report on the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that itself is contained within and not the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its finite string input specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The construction is not recursive if the description does 
>>>>>>>>>>>> not describe
>>>>>>>>>>>> the surrounding computation. And that behaviour cannot 
>>>>>>>>>>>> depend on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> decider, as they should all give the same answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That is far too vague.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH according to the semantics
>>>>>>>>>>> of the x86 programming language specifies a single exact
>>>>>>>>>>> sequence of state changes. None of these state changes
>>>>>>>>>>> ends up at the x86 machine language address of the "ret"
>>>>>>>>>>> instruction of DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which would be meaningful if HHH actual did a correct 
>>>>>>>>>> emulation of the 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH does emulate the exact sequence that the machine code
>>>>>>>>> of DDD specifies. This has been conclusively proven by
>>>>>>>>> the execution traces that the two instances of HHH provide.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, because it didn't emulate the call instruction properly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is proved that it does emulate the call instruction
>>>>>>> properly by the correct execution trace of the second
>>>>>>> DDD derived by the second HHH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, just proves you don't know what you are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Because your rebuttals have always been pure bluster
>>>>
>>>> No, YOUR rebuttal have been pure bluster that have avoided answering 
>>>> my challenges, thus effectively ADMITTING that you arte just a liar.
>>>>
>>>>> you have only used double-talk and misdirection to dodge
>>>>> pointing out any mistake in the following:
>>>>
>>>> How about the trace that HHH generates shouldn't start with the code 
>>>> of main, since that isn't what HHH starts simulating, thus your 
>>>> claims about the trace generate by HHH can not be supported by 
>>>> something elses trace.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is a very ignorant thing to say.
>>
>> NO, it is the truth.
>>
>>>
>>>> Second, the CORRECT emulation of a "call" instruciton should show 
>>>> the instruction of the routine called.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The extra 200 pages prove to be too confusing. The
>>> fact that after DDD calls HHH we do get the correct
>>> execution trace that would be derived from this call
>>> proves that the second HHH was called.
>>
>> Nope, they show you wrong.
>>
>> HOW can the emulation that HHH is doing show code that HHH doesn't 
>> look at?
>>
>> Your failure to answer (may times from the past) just prove that you 
>> KNOW that you have been lying, but don't want to face it.
>>
>> Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity
>>
>>>
>>> I will highlight all of the code so that you
>>> can see the each instruction both HHH are shown
>>> and both DDD are shown. I will use four different
>>> colors.
>>
>> Since the trace isn't the right trace, that doesn't mean anything.
>>
>> And, where are the colors, you said there would be colors.
>>
>> Did you not know that this group is text only?
>>
>>>
>>> It really have already been 100% totally proven in
>>> that after DDD calls HHH we to get the correct
>>> execution trace of DDD emulated by this second HHH
>>>
>>>> Thus, a "Call 000015d2" *MUST* be followed by the instruction AT 
>>>> 000015d2, and not "Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation"
>>>>
>>>> Since you have just been repeating this smae ERROR over and over, 
>>>> you are just proving that you just don't care about the truth, but 
>>>> are just repeating your same LIES over and over and over, securing 
>>>> your place in Gehenna.
>>>>
>>>  >>>> _DDD()
>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>
>>>>> _main()
>>>>> [00002192] 55         push ebp
>>>>> [00002193] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00002195] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>> [000021a2] 50         push eax
>>>>> [000021a3] 6843070000 push 00000743
>>>>> [000021a8] e8b5e5ffff call 00000762
>>>>> [000021ad] 83c408     add esp,+08
>>>>> [000021b0] 33c0       xor eax,eax
>>>>> [000021b2] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>> [000021b3] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [000021b3]
>>>>>
>>>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>>> [00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp
>>>>> [00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call 
>>>>> HHH(DDD)
>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038c4
>>>>>
>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
>>>>> [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call 
>>>>> HHH(DDD)
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========