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 specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:05:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a21e992a1c68f9bc1b1cfa68d4674b835294737a@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vru5tp$38ob9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ac61f679d7ddb39b0ceaedd7f562899d36346535@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvccp$aq8m$3@dont-email.me>
 <e166831a8e02332d64ec151f61481e2629e6e53a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvsh4$p4vd$2@dont-email.me>
 <c93030bbd81fb313c76c256c6e54beb48b07dfdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vs1vuv$2ot1m$1@dont-email.me>
 <d2f86fad6c5823e3c098f30d331576c52263b398@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2fgn$354gv$5@dont-email.me>
 <61f821b5a18046ab36ddb6c52a003b574cf34de6@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2hnm$38lvq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9be1ff2af6bbf405565b27bc8211adf9f353e9f2@i2pn2.org>
 <vs44b6$qjc3$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ff8345ef2ddb51594c67cf7f5cbb81f696afbc5@i2pn2.org>
 <vs4per$1c1ja$5@dont-email.me>
 <8a8d4ac681ff887744c6a24e9c8f2777222da16f@i2pn2.org>
 <vs4st9$1c1ja$10@dont-email.me>
 <b7da0be84663018deae9e8d8b673b5d1e87b7de1@i2pn2.org>
 <vs50gb$1c1ja$14@dont-email.me>
 <6e702874c08a1f683fe9dd3afb88c66c37456d46@i2pn2.org>
 <vs6osm$39556$2@dont-email.me>
 <094949a5a2ac4dec2df1ab428d48137ef3c9d79f@i2pn2.org>
 <vs78i8$3ms9k$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:11:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2188910"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vs78i8$3ms9k$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7165
Lines: 125

On 3/28/25 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/28/2025 4:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/28/25 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2025 8:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/25 9:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 4:56 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:10:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/25 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 10:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/25 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> staste even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an unbounded number of steps are emulated. Since HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, it isn't showing non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its final state 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But DDD emulated by an actually correct emulator will,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you were not intentionally persisting in a lie you would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge the dead obvious that DDD emulated by HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly correctly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, HHH is not a correct simulator.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You say that it is not a correct simulator on the basis
>>>>>>>>> of your ignorance of the x86 language that conclusively
>>>>>>>>> proves that HHH does correctly simulate the first four
>>>>>>>>> instructions of DDD and correctly simulates itself
>>>>>>>>> simulating the first four instructions of DDD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It isn't a correct simulator, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know that you are lying about this or you would
>>>>>>> show how DDD emulated by HHH would reach its final state
>>>>>>> ACCORDING TO THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can't be, because your HHH doesn't meet your requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You cannot show that because you know you are lying about that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure we can, make a main that directly calls HHH and then DDD, then 
>>>> call HHH1(DDD)
>>>>
>>>> That HHH will return 0, saying that DDD is non-halting, but the DDD 
>>>> wll return, showing that DDD is halting.
>>>>
>>>> Look at the trace that HHH generates, and that HHH1 generates, HHH's 
>>>> will be a subset of the trace that HHH1 generates, showing that it 
>>>> is NOT proof that this program is non-halting as that exact same 
>>>> initial segment halts.
>>>>
>>>> Your argument about changing HHH shows that it doesn't halt is just 
>>>> invalid, as then you either changed the input, or demonstrated that 
>>>> you input was a class error as it didn't contain the COMPLETE 
>>>> representation of the code of DDD.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, This is what you have been told for years, but you refuse to 
>>>> look at the truth, because you have been brainwashed by your lies.
>>>>
>>>> Look
>>>
>>> I can't understand how that confused mess addresses
>>> the point of this thread:
>>>
>>> It is a verified fact that the finite string of machine
>>> code of DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of
>>> the x86 language has different behavior than DDD emulated
>>> by HHH1 according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>
>>
>> Where did you "verify" that LIE.
>>
>> You claim fails the simple test:
>>
>> What is the first instruction actually correctly emulated by the rules 
>> of the x86 language by HHH and HHH1 that had a different result.
>>
> 
> When DDD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) this call NEVER returns.

Only because your HHH doesn't do a correct emulation. PERIOD,

You can't change HHH to do one, or it isn't the input you are talking about.

> When DDD emulated by HHH1 calls HHH(DDD) this call returns.

Which shows that the CORRECT emulation will halt.

Thus PROVING that you first claim is just a strawman, as HHH doesn't 
"Correctly Emulate" its input per the definition that establishes 
non-halting.

The truth is that HHH saw EXACTLY the same instructions as HHH1, giving 
EXACTLY the same results, until it aborted its emulation.

Sorry, you just proved, by failing to answer the question, admitted that 
you KNOW your claim is incorrect, but you are going to lie anyway, as 
you are just a pathological liar.