Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 18:52:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a1165ebddda95508bc8a1bdd9eb0ac6ef5b9d6f9@i2pn2.org>
References: <vajdta$2qe9s$1@dont-email.me> <vak3a0$2teq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vakhnf$302rl$2@dont-email.me> <vamk7l$3d7ki$1@dont-email.me>
 <van3v7$3f6c0$5@dont-email.me> <vap7b1$3sobs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapvbc$3vumk$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 22:52:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="189249"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vapvbc$3vumk$5@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3988
Lines: 87

On 8/29/24 10:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/29/2024 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-28 12:08:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 8/28/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-27 12:44:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/27/2024 3:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 27.aug.2024 om 04:33 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> This is intended to be a stand-alone post that does not
>>>>>>> reference anything else mentioned in any other posts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we assume that:
>>>>>>> (a) HHH is an x86 emulator that is in the same memory space as DDD.
>>>>>>> (b) HHH emulates DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then we can see that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly get past
>>>>>>> its own machine address 0000217a.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we see. In fact DDD is not needed at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal 
>>>>> fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually 
>>>>> under discussion...
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>>>>
>>>> You should also point a link to the equivocation fallacy. You use it
>>>> more often than straw man.
>>>
>>> Isomorphism is not equivocation
>>
>> The use of HHH for many purposes (a specific program, an unpsecified
>> memeber of a set of programs, a hypothetical program) is.
>>
>> Your first posting looked like you were going to apply equivocation
>> later in the discussion. Now, after several later messages, it seems
>> that you want to apply the fallacy of "moving the goal posts" instead.
>>
> 
> void EEE()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
>    return;
> }
> 
> HHH correctly predicts what the behavior of EEE would
> be if this HHH never aborted its emulation of EEE.
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> HHH correctly predicts what the behavior of DDD would
> be if this HHH never aborted its emulation of DDD.
> 
> 

But since HHH doesn't "mever abort", that isn't the DDD that it was 
given. *SINCE* HHH aborts is simulation, a correct simulaiton of DDD 
*WILL* halt, and thus HHH is incorrect to say *THIS* DDD will not halt 
if not aborted.

That is your problem;

EEE never halts regardless of what HHH does, so it DIFFERENT than DDD.