Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 21:50:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c784fa694b9d68f5ace1d07c9870050681268fdc@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me> <v6ikv5$19h6q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jguf$1ctoi$5@dont-email.me> <v6ji1d$1dpoc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jig0$1ctoi$11@dont-email.me> <v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jpe5$1eul0$1@dont-email.me> <v6jpqo$1e3jq$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6jqfg$1eul0$2@dont-email.me> <v6k6md$1h3a7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6k9ef$1hicb$1@dont-email.me>
 <04b97cd4a405abead92368522fcf77070bb4fa55@i2pn2.org>
 <v6l24d$1oqjv$1@dont-email.me>
 <a267bfdf93c6fc179d09a3f62f25003f033aaff1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6m331$1tj30$7@dont-email.me>
 <6d43f24547a3b170ce6f7a99e30ec60dec589f79@i2pn2.org>
 <v6n8ob$24dmg$3@dont-email.me>
 <7f9b731b2367a2bcf2883278ee5265d30a8f82d6@i2pn2.org>
 <v6nau1$24jgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <744d42e4d9d67b49cb1844a2651cb0c350760f0c@i2pn2.org>
 <v6nc22$2501i$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 01:50:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2844748"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6nc22$2501i$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6291
Lines: 115

On 7/10/24 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/10/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/10/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/10/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 09 Jul 2024 23:19:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/9/2024 11:01 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>   > That means that HHH doesn't return, in particular that it 
>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>   > abort.
>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that correctly 
>>>>>>>>> emulates
>>>>>>>>> 1 to ∞ steps of DDD can't make it past the above line of code 
>>>>>>>>> no matter
>>>>>>>>> what.
>>>>>>>> That line being the call to itself -> it can't simulate itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *DDD NEVER HALTS*
>>>>>>>> DDD ONLY calls HHH...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
>>>>>>> correctly emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it
>>>>>>> to the second line of DDD no matter what.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a dead cat in your driveway does not mean that
>>>>> you have a peanut butter sandwich on your front porch.
>>>>> It has taken you at least 1000 messages to see that.
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
>>>>> correctly emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it
>>>>> to the second line of DDD no matter what.
>>>>
>>>> WRONG, you don't seem to understand the difference between DDD and 
>>>> HHH's emualtion of it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Would you bet your immortal soul that DDD simulated
>>> by HHH (as provided above) would terminate normally?
>>>
>>
>> That is a ambiguous statement, showing your attempt at deciet.
>>
> 
> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
> is the semantics of the x86 programming language. By this
> measure when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated
> by each pure function x86 emulator HHH (of the infinite
> set of every HHH that can possibly exist) then DDD cannot
> possibly reach its own machine address of 00002174 and halt.

And thus you stipulate that you are a LIAR.

By the semantic of the x86 programming language, the only correct 
simulation is a FULL simulation that proceeds to the final insttuction 
as that is what the x86 language defines, and thus NO HHH can correct 
simulate less than an infinite number of instructions of the program 
DDD, and in doing so spends virtually all of its time emulationg the 
instructions of HHH, showing that it will never halt.

When you admit to HHH not being actually a correct emulator and let it 
abort, and return, we can then establish that a DDD that calls such a 
PARTIAL emulator HHH will be finite and return even though the PARTAL 
emulation by that HHH mever sees it because it stops too soon,

> 
> _DDD()
> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002174] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
> 
> Will you bet your immortal soul that any of the above
> DDD of DDD/HHH pairs reach their own machine address
> of 00002174 and halt?
> 

Sure, because it is clearly true that EVERY DDD that calls an HHH(DDD) 
that returns will get to that final return, even though its HHH will 
never simulate its copy of it to that point, because it aborts its 
PARTIAL simulation and lies to itself about what it is doing (or more 
accurately, YOU LIED TO YOURSELF about the behavior of HHH and claimed a 
falsehood) and thus gets the wrong andwer.

> Claiming ambiguity without specifically pointing this
> out will be construed as deception thus swearing your
> allegiance to the father of lies.
> 

But you have already made that pledge, so yI guess you are just lost.

No ambiguity about that claim, DDD definitly gets to the return when run 
if HHH(DDD) returns.

The ambiguity comes up when you use wording that half implies you are 
looking at the (partial) simulation but also implies you are looking at 
the actual behavior.