Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.neodome.net!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 ---repeat until understood
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 07:14:54 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d436e7deec7f6f656d240260c8a2d4a6aa7da6d3@i2pn2.org>
References: <veoift$29dtl$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>
 <cdd23411358bd88db9419d0106ab3e25dc37260b@i2pn2.org>
 <vft8pj$25aio$5@dont-email.me>
 <b786b58d2058713493adee78df4d67104049a6e8@i2pn2.org>
 <vfuq13$2dd86$1@dont-email.me>
 <3eaeab66a4ab32a0d99f6a1c6c07ba02a5fe4f28@i2pn2.org>
 <vfuvah$2huam$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 11:14:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="283879"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vfuvah$2huam$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 9728
Lines: 185

On 10/30/24 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/30/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/30/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2024 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/30/24 8:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/30/2024 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really so stupid that you think you can keep getting
>>>>> away with the strawman deception by changing the subject away
>>>>> from DDD emulated by HHH?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What strawman?
>>>>
>>>> I am just going to the defintions of the problem you claim to be 
>>>> solving.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do I have to repeat this a few hundred times in every post
>>> so that you can remember from one post to the next?
>>>
>>> *AT THIS POINT HHH IS NOT A HALT DECIDER OR A TERMINATION ANALYZER*
>>> *AT THIS POINT HHH IS NOT A HALT DECIDER OR A TERMINATION ANALYZER*
>>> *AT THIS POINT HHH IS NOT A HALT DECIDER OR A TERMINATION ANALYZER*
>>
>> But, you haven't removed yourself from the topic, so the definitions 
>> still apply.
>>
>>>
>>> HHH is each element of the set of x86 emulators that emulates zero
>>> to infinity steps of DDD including zero to infinity emulations of
>>> itself emulating DDD.
>>
>> No, it isn't, because your published HHH is not a "set of programs".
>>
>> It is *A* progrtam.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which means HHH can't abort its emulaiton, or it fails to meet its 
>> requrements.
>>
>> And thus the ONLY HHH that meets yor requrements is a different one 
>> than presented, and that one returns to NOBODY.
>>
>> You can't try to redefine the terms until you clearly and public 
>> announce that you are leaving Computation Theory behind, and nothing 
>> you talk about can be broght back in.
>>
> 
> EVERYTHING NOT EXPRESSLY STATED IS EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED
> UNLESS ENTAILED BY THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> DDD emulated by any 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.
> 

So, you are just admitting that you don't know what you are talking 
about, since NOTHING after your disclaimer that we can only evalute 
everything by the "semantics of the x86 language" is in the x86 languge, 
and thus not meaningful.

Sorry, it is clear you don't understand what the words you are using 
mean, because it seems there is a big funny-mental filter between your 
brain and the world.

Even if you replace the C function DDD with its x86 code equivalenet, 
you can't evaluate your later claim, as the "call HHH" instruction in 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========