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 18:52:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bbdf376156b30e940330b7d244f1052a3812a39d@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> <vaqant$22im$1@dont-email.me>
 <vaqbbq$28ni$1@dont-email.me> <vaqcd2$22im$3@dont-email.me>
 <vaqe3n$28ni$4@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 22:52:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="189249"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vaqe3n$28ni$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5513
Lines: 115

On 8/29/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/29/2024 12:50 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 29.aug.2024 om 19:32 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/29/2024 12:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 29.aug.2024 om 16:07 schreef olcott:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Which is incorrect, because HHH is not allowed to change the input. 
>>>> The simulating HHH may abort, but it may not ignore the fact that 
>>>> the input (the simulated HHH) is coded to abort when it sees the 
>>>> 'special condition'. Otherwise it would decide about a non-input, 
>>>> which is not allowed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I told you this too many times so you must be a liar*
>>> No DDD ever reaches its "return" instruction no matter
>>> what-the-Hell that HHH does, 
>>
>> Exactly. Do you finally understand that HHH cannot possibly simulate 
>> itself up to the end?
> 
> *That seems to be a stupid (ignoramus) thing to say*

No THAT was a stupid thing to say.

> 
> DDD forces emulated HHH to remain stuck in recursive
> simulation forcing the emulated HHH to never reach
> its own final halt state.

No, DDD can do nothibg to affect the behavior of HHH, getting stuck 
would purely be an error on HHH's part, which you have made sure it 
doesn't, so neither does DDD.

> 
> Do you have at least a BS degree in CS? Richard does not.
> 

No, I do not have a BS in CS, it is a Masters. YOU are the one that 
seems to have a "BS" (as in BULL SHIT) in Computer Science.