Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: III correctly emulated by EEE ---
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 22:53:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dc633a07cd15e2c80ed98083cc5f9d218edcc9da@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrgme1$2tr56$1@dont-email.me>
 <vri5mn$6nv4$1@dont-email.me>
 <8354fe5751e03a767452a3999818d5c6da714a6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrigh6$f35v$1@dont-email.me> <vrj6d3$14iuu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjog0$1ilbe$6@dont-email.me>
 <db8aa67218b2a0990cd1df38aca29dbd3930e145@i2pn2.org>
 <vrkumg$2l2ci$2@dont-email.me>
 <ba957e964c1090cbb801b1688b951ac095281737@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmepa$2r2l$1@dont-email.me>
 <d8ee6d675850304b99af1b587437ba0ac64dbb85@i2pn2.org>
 <vrms64$cvat$2@dont-email.me>
 <76e394abe71be9cdc7f1948e73352c4f76ae409e@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmua7$cvat$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 02:53:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1355129"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vrmua7$cvat$8@dont-email.me>

On 3/22/25 2:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/22/2025 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/22/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2025 11:37 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:43:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>     HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>> }
>>>>> There is no program DDD in the above code.
>>>> There is also no Infinite_Recursion.
>>>>
>>>>> Since no Turing machine M can ever compute the mapping from the 
>>>>> behavior
>>>>> of any directly executed TM2 referring to the behavior of the directly
>>>>> executed DDD has always been incorrect. Halt Deciders always report on
>>>>> the behavior that their input finite string specifies.
>>>
>>>> Please explain what behaviour the description of a TM "specifies",
>>>> and which TM the input describes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Bill sang a song" describes what Bill did.
>>> A tape recording of Bill singing that same
>>> song completely specifies what Bill did.
>>
>> And what a UTM does with this input completely specifies its behavior,
>>
>>>
>>>>> In every case that does not involve pathological self-reference the
>>>>> behavior that the finite string specifies is coincidentally the same
>>>>> behavior as the direct execution of the corresponding machine. The
>>>>> actual measure, however, has always been the behavior that the finite
>>>>> string input specifies.
>>>> ...which is the direct execution. Not much of a coincidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _III()
>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III
>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III)
>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>
>>> When-so-ever any correct emulator EEE correctly emulates
>>> a finite number of steps of an input III that calls this
>>> same emulator to emulate itself the behavior of the direct
>>> execution of III will not be the same as the behavior of
>>> the emulated III.
>>>
>>
>> Becuase a finite emulation that stop before the end is not a correct 
>> emulation 
> 
> In other words you keep dishonestly trying to get away with
> disagreeing with the law of identity.
> 
> When N steps are III are correctly emulated by EEE
> then N steps are III are correctly emulated by EEE.

Which isn't the same as the CORRECT emulation that shows if the program 
being emulated will halt/.

> 
> There exists no Natural Number N number of steps of III
> correctly emulated by EEE where III reaches its
> own "ret" instruction and terminates normally.
> 

Because each emulation is of a DIFFERENT PROGRAM, and thus the results 
of one can't be apppled to the other.

Sorry, you are just proving you don't know what the words actually mean.