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: Hypothetical IMpossibilities
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 13:52:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ebee71fed842c83a0c6ef7b1d5d840abedd1a364@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7h1fl$3lcvq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7h224$3li66$3@dont-email.me> <v7h3je$3lcvq$6@dont-email.me>
 <v7h55o$2a60$1@news.muc.de> <v7h5fi$3m6kq$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7inno$1uji$3@dont-email.me> <v7j5pf$3o7r$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:52:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3938152"; 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: <v7j5pf$3o7r$8@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4373
Lines: 82

On 7/21/24 10:25 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/21/2024 5:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 20.jul.2024 om 22:08 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/20/2024 3:03 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>
>>>> In comp.theory Fred. Zwarts <F.Zwarts@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>> Olcott could not point to an error, but prefers to ignore it. So, I 
>>>>> will
>>>>> repeat it, until either an error is found, or olcott admits that HHH
>>>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>>>>
>>>> This has the disadvantage of making your posts boring to read.  All but
>>>> one poster on this newsgroup KNOW that Olcott is wrong, here.
>>>>
>>>> Continually repeating your argument won't get him to admit he's wrong.
>>>> Richard has been trying that for much longer than you have, with the
>>>> same lack of success.  Olcott's lack of capacity for abstract 
>>>> reasoning,
>>>> combined with his ignorance, combined with his arrogance, prevent him
>>>> learning at all.
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest that you reconsider your strategy of endless repetition?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you are going to stupidly disagree with this?
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> It *is* a fact that no DDD correctly simulated by any
>>> pure function HHH ever reaches its own return instruction.
>>
>> Which proves that these simulations are incorrect.
>>
> 
> _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]
> 
> *You don't get to be the judge of this*
> As long as the x86 machine language instructions of DDD
> are emulated by HHH according to the semantic meaning
> of these instructions then the emulation is correct and
> anyone that disagrees is disagreeing with a tautology.
> 
> This correct emulation must take into account the fact
> that DDD is calling its own emulator: HHH(DDD) in recursive
> emulation.
> 

Which INLCUDE the Call HHH which must go into HHH, which means the code 
of HHH is PART of the imput, either explicitly or implicitly.

There is no other way to "take into account" the calling of an emulator, 
since there is no concept of an emulator in the x86 language. The 
emulator USES the definition of the x86 langauge, but isn't part of it.

This seems to be beyound your ability to understand, which is what make 
you into the ingornat pathological lying idiot with the reckless 
disregard of the truth, since you ignore the actual definition of a call 
instruction.

Note, even if you change to a functional emulation where you can replace 
the call HHH by an equivalent, then you can't do what you want, since 
HHH isn't a UNCONDITIONAL emulation, but a CONDITIONAL emulation, so 
that conditionalirty needs to be expressed in the simulation, with a 
conditionality comment with each instruction it emulates. Failure to 
have that just make your arguement a LIE.