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: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 07:31:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <aa5b4ea58acc78215b23c4a99e7a688a76b099db@i2pn2.org>
References: <vajdta$2qe9s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 11:31:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4088684"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vajdta$2qe9s$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3298
Lines: 56

On 8/26/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

But only under a couple of conditions and implications.

1) It only hold *IF* and *ONLY IF* HHH is IN FACT an actual x86 emulator 
that totally emulates the input given to it, and NEVER "stops" before 
reaching an end.

If HHH decides to stop emulating and returning, then the DDD that it was 
emulating will reach its end, just after the point that HHH emulated it, 
as DDD refers to the FULL PROGRAM DDD, and not just the fragment shown, 
and its behavior is its full behavior. (If you want the behavior of the 
emulation, then that needs to be the subject of the sentence, not DDD).

2) Such an HHH is BY DEFINITION not a pure function, as to do what it is 
described to do, it needed to use information that was not part of its 
input, namely the code for the HHH that DDD is calling, that you have 
excluded from the input.

3) Since HHH in emulating this input needs to access information outside 
that input to perform that action, the results also only apply to the 
case where that extra data still matches, in other words, it only 
applies to a correct emulation of a DDD that calls a non-aborting 
correctly emulating HHH.

Thus, while we KNOW you are just lying about this actually intending on 
being a stand-alone post, your conditions actually force it to be, as 
your conditions EXCLUDE HHH from being changed to a Halt Decider and 
still have the results applicable.

Sorry, you are painting yourself into a box.