Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:49:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b99919f5bb0b52ca931eaea9ebd77026425612e1@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrgme1$2tr56$1@dont-email.me>
 <vri5mn$6nv4$1@dont-email.me> <vrj696$14eej$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjoaq$1ilbe$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 23:49:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1199593"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vrjoaq$1ilbe$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 3/21/25 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/21/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-20 22:43:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/20/2025 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-20 02:32:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> 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 N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according
>>>>> to the semantics of the x86 language then these
>>>>> N steps are emulated correctly.
>>>>
>>>> That does not make much sense to define the correct emulation of DDD as
>>>> it should mean whatever "correct emulation" means when applied to DDD.
>>>>
>>>> Althouth promised otherwise on the subject line the meaning of "DDD
>>>> correctly emulated by HHH" when N is not specified is not defined.
>>>
>>> N in this context always means any element of the
>>> set of natural numbers.
>>
>> No, it does not. It means a number that makes sense in the context and
>> will be specified when the definition shall be applied.
>>
>>> 1,2,3...4,294,967,296 steps of DDD are correctly emulated
>>> by HHH and DDD never reaches its "ret" instruction and
>>> terminates normally.
>>
>> But your HHH does not simulate correctly more steps of DDD than your
>> HHH1 does.
>>
> 
> This HHH is the hypothetical HHH the emulates an arbitrary number
> of steps of DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language.
> It is always at machine address 000015d2. This same HHH also
> has the ability to emulate itself emulating DDD.

But the HHH that DDD calls isn't supposed to be that, but the original 
HHH that you claim gives the correct answer.

A program doesn't depend on things outside of it, unless given as its 
input, and DDD doesn't take HHH as an input, so it must be a fixed quantity.

And, as you have shown, HHH can NOT correctly emulate itself (at least 
none that give an answer) as it will ALWAY have aborted before reaching 
the end,

And thus, when we look at the ACTUAL correct emulation of that DDD, we 
see it will halt, despite the fact that HHH, with its INCORRECT logic 
failed to do so.

All you have done is turned one failure, into an infinite number of 
them, as each "problem" must have a specific HHH and its specific DDD, 
and ALL the HHH that abort and return 0 are shown to be wrong, as the 
actual correct (non-aborted) emulation of that input will halt, it just 
can't be done by HHH, as HHH wasn't defined to do that correct emulation.

> 
> *Here is what the looks like*
> 
> _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]
> 
>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>   address   address   data      code       language
>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> 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)
> New slave_stack at:14e2ec
> [00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> 
> 

Sorry, but you are just painting yourself into the corner and revealing 
your fraud.