Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 12:29:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c918c9dadd5f4f0bef1e71a049b5fd13be904f45@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$5@dont-email.me>
 <e10aee5b3ede543da42ba76ac4d7f0a0fe762695@i2pn2.org>
 <vasmn8$hmpd$1@dont-email.me> <vaumg9$ut9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav0r9$10jsm$1@dont-email.me> <vavb4a$11uqn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vavca1$1283f$1@dont-email.me> <vave2b$11uqn$7@dont-email.me>
 <vavfoi$12m8t$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 16:29:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="364207"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vavfoi$12m8t$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 13148
Lines: 250

On 8/31/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/31/2024 10:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 17:19 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/31/2024 9:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 14:03 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 8/31/2024 4:07 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 30.aug.2024 om 16:58 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/30/2024 9:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:07:39 -0500 schrieb 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly predicts what the behavior of DDD would be if 
>>>>>>>>> this HHH
>>>>>>>>> never aborted its emulation of DDD.
>>>>>>>> Problem is, DDD is then not calling itself, but the non-input of a
>>>>>>>> not-aborting HHH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This is before any aborting occurs*
>>>>>>> *This is before any aborting occurs*
>>>>>>> *This is before any aborting occurs*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is your problem. The code of the program and its meaning 
>>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language, does not suddenly 
>>>>>> change when the aborting occurs.
>>>>>
>>>>> You cannot possibly say one damn thing about the behavior of DDD
>>>>> until you first understand that a world class x86 emulator that
>>>>> HHH calls does enable HHH to correctly emulate itself emulating
>>>>> DDD and the following execution trace proves this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And when this unmodified world class x86 simulator was given 
>>>> olcott's DDD based on the aborting HHH as input, it showed that this 
>>>> has halting behaviour.
>>>> THIS IS A VERIFIED FACT! Even olcott has verified it.
>>>> This correct simulation by the unmodified world class simulator 
>>>> tells us that the program has a halting behaviour.
>>>> Your *modification* of the simulator stops the simulation before it 
>>>> can see the halting behaviour and decides that the input is 
>>>> non-halting.
>>>> We know which one is correct: the unmodified world class simulator, 
>>>> not the *modified* one, which aborts one cycle too soon..
>>>>
>>>> SO, it it not honest to suggest that we do not understand what the 
>>>> world class simulator predicts.
>>>>
>>>>> SE CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE ANY HONEST DIALOGUE WHEN MY REVIEWERS
>>>>> INSIST ON LYING ABOUT VERIFIED FACTS.
>>>>
>>>> No evidence given. No reference to a single lie.
>>>> Olcott seems just a bit short of memory.
>>>> It is unclear why olcott hides these verified fact, which he knows 
>>>> are true.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _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]
>>>>>
>>>>> _main()
>>>>> [00002192] 55         push ebp
>>>>> [00002193] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00002195] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>> [000021a2] 50         push eax
>>>>> [000021a3] 6843070000 push 00000743
>>>>> [000021a8] e8b5e5ffff call 00000762
>>>>> [000021ad] 83c408     add esp,+08
>>>>> [000021b0] 33c0       xor eax,eax
>>>>> [000021b2] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>> [000021b3] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [000021b3]
>>>>>
>>>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>>> [00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp      ; Begin main()
>>>>> [00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call 
>>>>> HHH(DDD)
>>>>>
>>>>> 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)
>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Still dreaming of the HHH that does an infinite recursion? 
>>>
>>> Before we can proceed to the next step you must first agree
>>> that the second emulation of DDD by the emulated HHH is proven
>>> to be correct on the basis that it does emulate the first four
>>> instructions of DDD.
>>>
>>
>> I agree that the simulation makes a good start, but it fails to 
>> complete the simulation up to the end, making the simulation as a 
>> whole incorrect.
>> We cannot proceed before you understand this.
> 
> Here is no abort and x86utm emulating 100,000,000 instructions.

Which is a meaningless number, as that is the number of instructions 
that HHH used, not what it emulated.

Also, that says this is NOT the input given to your ACTUAL DDD, as you 
have cnanged that input by chaning the HHH that it calls.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========