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: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:02:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b7da0be84663018deae9e8d8b673b5d1e87b7de1@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrqb6f$3k9kh$2@dont-email.me>
 <3f250e699762cfe6fccc844f10eb04f32d470b6a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrrpcl$11a56$4@dont-email.me>
 <8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org>
 <vrt3gv$264jb$4@dont-email.me>
 <448c82acff6b5fc1d2aa266be92df6f778ec2c6a@i2pn2.org>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:06:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2053192"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vs4st9$1c1ja$10@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4960
Lines: 71

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.

The one and only correct emualtion of DDD is identical to that generated 
by running the program.

YOU have the burden of proof, and you have FAILED.

All you are doing is increasing the proof that you have absolutely no 
idea of how logic works or the meaning of the words you use.

You SHOULD be able to see that you are lying, as the evidence has been 
clearly laid out, but it seems you have seered your brain by your own 
brainwashing yourself about the "fact" that to learn something about the 
topic would brainwash you into not believing your all important lies.

You can't let yourself see that you have been lying to yourself, then 
you could forgive yourself for the harm you have done to yourself.

Sorry, but you have sunk your reputation to the bottom of that lake of 
fire that you will be join it in.