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: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 22:25:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fe53b01c25165237b6537ea7efd9d3b39593352e@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgr22$1ag3a$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvgt36$1auqp$2@dont-email.me> <vvgtbe$1b0li$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me> <vvh0t2$1b939$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhap5$1hp80$1@dont-email.me> <vvhf20$1ihs9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhfnd$1hvei$3@dont-email.me> <vvil99$1ugd5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvinvp$1vglb$1@dont-email.me> <vviv75$222r6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvj1fp$22a62$1@dont-email.me> <vvj2j6$23gk7$1@dont-email.me>
 <as9TP.251456$lZjd.93653@fx05.ams4> <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me> <87a57mek8r.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjgh7$28g5i$4@dont-email.me> <87seled0zy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjobj$28g5i$11@dont-email.me> <87zffmbeyt.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvm1ih$33907$1@dont-email.me> <vvm6ku$34h6f$2@dont-email.me>
 <f843cd85133177b7ab5e33c46ca7352f4f50e851@i2pn2.org>
 <vvm846$34mm4$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 02:35:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3883114"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvm846$34mm4$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3725
Lines: 40

On 5/9/25 8:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/9/2025 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/9/25 8:29 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 10/05/2025 00:02, olcott wrote:
>>>> Correctly emulating one or more instructions <is>
>>>> the correct emulation of 1 or more instructions
>>>> of DD. This is a truism.
>>>
>>> No, it's not. Correct emulation would entail accurately simulating 
>>> the whole of DDD's behaviour.
>>>
>>   This is just typical Olcottian behavior, Actual definitons don't 
>> matter to him, which is what makes so much of what he says just turn 
>> out to be lies when they are interpreted (as they must be) with the 
>> actual definitions.
> 
> _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]
> 
> Try to show how DDD simulated by HHH according to the
> rules of the x86 language reaches its own "ret"
> instruction final state and you already know that
> you will fail. You dodge this question so that
> you can remain disagreeable.

The problem is that HHH can not emulate this input past the call 
000015d2 instruction, as that isn't part of the input, and you need to 
restrict HHH to be a pure function (and thus can't use memory not 
derived from the input) or my static variable hack lets us create an HHH 
that can emulate that input to the return instruciton as I have shown.

Sorry, you are just caught in your lies and shown that you can't 
actually prove what you claim, and you seem to know it at some level as 
you just refuse to respond to the errors, thus accpeting them as valid.