Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: DDD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:49:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ece45b15f3570eedd59fb3152dd28bfde5f634a9@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>
 <1bb178ec039c45790f2987c5ca0d34d961ea737d@i2pn2.org>
 <vrjpva$1l2bf$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2025 23:49:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1199593"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vrjpva$1l2bf$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4821
Lines: 88

On 3/21/25 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/21/2025 6:48 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/20/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/20/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/20/25 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/20/2025 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-03-20 02:32:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according
>>>>>>> to the semantics of the x86 language then these
>>>>>>> N steps are emulated correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That does not make much sense to define the correct emulation of 
>>>>>> DDD as
>>>>>> it should mean whatever "correct emulation" means when applied to 
>>>>>> DDD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Althouth promised otherwise on the subject line the meaning of "DDD
>>>>>> correctly emulated by HHH" when N is not specified is not defined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> N in this context always means any element of the
>>>>> set of natural numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Then HHH isn't a specific program, and you are admitting that you 
>>>> "logic" is just based on FRAUD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have been over this same thing too many times.
>>
>> Right, and you still don't understand that you are required to follow 
>> the definitions of the system to be in the system.
>>
>> You have ADMITTED that you aren't following the rules of the system, 
>> and thus every time you imply that you are, you have admitted you are 
>> lying.
>>
>> Thus, every time you claim to be "solving" the Halting Problem, you 
>> have admitted you are just lying about that.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1,2,3...4,294,967,296 steps of DDD are correctly emulated
>>>>> by HHH and DDD never reaches its "ret" instruction and
>>>>> terminates normally.
>>>>
>>>> DIFFERENT HHHs and thus DIFFERENT DDDs were emulated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The point remains the same without the additional details.
>>> For every HHH at machine address 000015d2 when the above
>>> listed machine code is emulated for any finite number of
>>> steps according to the semantics of the x86 language the
>>> above finite string of machine code never reaches its own
>>> "ret" instruction and halts.
>>
>> In other words, you claim it is ok to lie about the system you are 
>> working on.
>>
> 
> Those words are defamation of character that meets the
> required standard of reckless disregard of the truth
> of the semantics of the x86 language.
> 
> https://dictionary.justia.com/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth
> 

Nope, try to prove it. The problem is you have admitted that everything 
you say is based on the concept that you can redefine core terms, and 
thus everything you say is possible a lie of misdefinition.

The problem with this particular claim, is that it is YOU that is 
reckless disregarding the truth, as "according to the semantics of the 
x86 language" has very specific meaning, that you just disregard.

It means, as the processor itself would execute the program (that is the 
behavior of the directly executed function) and nothing else. And since 
HHH doesn't complete the job, it can't assume that the call to HHH will 
complete the job either, which just shows that you logic is based on lies.