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: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 07:19:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cdd23411358bd88db9419d0106ab3e25dc37260b@i2pn2.org>
References: <veoift$29dtl$2@dont-email.me> <vf7ks8$1d1vt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vf8eu5$1h5mj$2@dont-email.me> <vfdk8g$2lgl1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfdrb8$2mcdg$1@dont-email.me> <vffk1i$33iat$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfgaev$36im7$5@dont-email.me> <vfi743$3kr1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfip3l$3ner2$2@dont-email.me>
 <1bc1ab08ec47bf818ddff1d4f63b542ceadd6985@i2pn2.org>
 <vfjokd$3su2f$1@dont-email.me> <vfk3jl$3kr0c$5@i2pn2.org>
 <vfk4lk$3ukdm$1@dont-email.me> <vfl8o9$3mnmt$5@i2pn2.org>
 <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpcko$1837o$3@dont-email.me> <vfpish$3u885$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpjk2$1976k$1@dont-email.me>
 <086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org>
 <vfqs6h$1jg83$1@dont-email.me> <vfs1fj$2ci0$7@i2pn2.org>
 <vfs2rm$1q2ou$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 11:19:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="136108"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vfs2rm$1q2ou$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5141
Lines: 82

On 10/29/24 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2024 8:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/29/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/29/2024 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/28/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/28/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/28/24 9:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to emulate DDD per the x86 semantics without 
>>>>>>>> the code for HHH, so it needs to be part of the input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *You seemed to be a totally Jackass here*
>>>>>>> You are not that stupid
>>>>>>> You are not that ignorant
>>>>>>> and this is not your ADD
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At machine address 0000217a HHH emulates itself emulating
>>>>>>> DDD without knowing that it is emulating itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then how did it convert the call HHH into an emulation of DDD again?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When HHH (unknowingly) emulates itself emulating DDD this
>>>>> emulated HHH is going to freaking emulate DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you think it was going to play poker?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is what it would do, get stuck and fail to be a decider. It 
>>>> might figure out that it is emulating an emulating decider, at which 
>>>> point it knows that the decider might choose to abort its 
>>>> conditional emulation to return, so it needs to emulate further.
>>>>
>>>> Only by recognizing itself, does it have grounds to say that if I 
>>>> don't abort, it never will, and thus I am stuck, so I need to abort.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Counter-factual. This algorithm has no ability to its own code.
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c // page 801
>>>
>>> *That people fail to agree with this and also fail to*
>>> *correctly point out any error seems to indicate dishonestly*
>>> *or lack of technical competence*
>>>
>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
>>> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.
>>>
>>
>> No, it knows its own code because it rule for "No conditional 
>> branches" excludes that code.
>>
> 
> Are you really so stupid that you think this will help
> DDD reach its own return instruction?

DDD doesn't need any help to reach its own return instruction, as the 
HHH that it calls DOES abort and return to it.

The problem is the emulation of DDD, which HHH does, which is how your 
HHH tries to determine the answer (and fails because it uses false logic).

YOU are the stupid one that thinks LIES can help you find the truth, but 
just cloud your eyes as you seer your conscious.

> 
>> And thus it is working with an invalid arguement.
> 
>