Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to
 prove otherwise --- x86 DD
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 17:44:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <v3isk0$3hvf6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v3fmlc$2sogn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3fncn$2n53n$9@i2pn2.org> <v3fo1p$2t1ac$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3fqpt$2tjjm$1@dont-email.me> <v3fu48$2ulbk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3g0b9$2n53n$17@i2pn2.org> <v3g0q4$2v3lp$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3g2t2$2n53n$20@i2pn2.org> <v3g3ja$2vho5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3g7eb$2n53n$23@i2pn2.org> <v3g80k$30c96$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3g99u$2n53n$24@i2pn2.org> <v3g9tc$30pbl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3gaot$2n53n$26@i2pn2.org> <v3gp5p$36pdg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3hmbv$2q5op$1@i2pn2.org> <v3hv26$3bkv5$10@dont-email.me>
 <v3i9o8$2qu72$1@i2pn2.org> <v3ibt9$3f571$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3icnq$2qu71$1@i2pn2.org> <v3idlk$3f571$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3ifpp$2qu72$11@i2pn2.org> <v3ig8p$3f571$14@dont-email.me>
 <WD37O.6414$Cs55.45@fx33.iad> <v3ihgp$3g2kl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3ijkv$2qu72$14@i2pn2.org> <v3ilva$3gr4e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3imd7$2qu72$15@i2pn2.org> <v3io0j$3h1t8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3ip1a$2qu71$8@i2pn2.org> <v3iqae$3hetk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3ir73$2qu71$9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 00:44:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f629d257ac302b24ac32e99a4ff4b1b3";
	logging-data="3735014"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/osAbzx/ppVxwpw1Q14wD6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Gd97pafU76AIA2X3QYaHG4qcC/0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3ir73$2qu71$9@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5572

On 6/2/2024 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/2/24 6:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/2/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/2/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/2/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/2/24 4:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> *We can see that the following DD cannot possibly halt*
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless the HH(DD,DD) aborts its simulation and returns 0, then 
>>>>> DD(DD) will ALWAYS halt when directly called, which is the 
>>>>> definition of "Halting".
>>>>>
>>>>> Not your LIE that it pertains to partial simulations.
>>>>>
>>>>>> *when correctly simulated by every HH that can possibly exist*
>>>>>
>>>>> Except for EVERY HH that aborts its simulation and returns 0
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This may be an ADD thing.
>>>> For every HH that aborts its simulation and returns 0
>>>> DD correctly simulated by this HH *DID NOT HALT AND NEVER WILL HALT*
>>>
>>> Except you mental problems are getting in YOUR way.
>>>
>>> You said that "DD Can not halt" NOT "the simulation by H of DD can 
>>> not Halt"
>>>
>>
>> *I said neither of those things so it may be an ADD problem*
> 
> I guess your medication is making you blind.
> 
> Read the top line quoted from you on 6/2/24 4:50 PM
> 
> You said:
>     "*We can see that the following DD cannot possibly halt*"
> 

*Deceitfully taking things out of context*

On 6/2/2024 3:50 PM, olcott wrote:
 > *We can see that the following DD cannot possibly halt*
 > *when correctly simulated by every HH that can possibly exist*

> Remember, Halting is defined as the MACHINE reaching a fianl state, so 
> trying to qualify it with a partial simulation is an irrelevent 
> qualification.
> 
> 
>>
>>> Those are DIFFERENT statements.
>>>
>>> DD WILL Halt.
>>>
>>> Your claim, that I will neither confirm or deny (until you can show 
>>> why I should), is that the simulation by H can never reach the 
>>> statement after the call instruction.
>>>
>>
>> *Still not quite what I said*
> 
> But you did in your message from 3:54 today earier in the thread:
> 
>    DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
>    reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e]
> 

If you get my words 99.99999% perfectly then you screwed up
far too much, thus 80% is not in the ballpark.

*We can see that the following DD cannot possibly halt*
*when correctly simulated by every HH that can possibly exist*

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int DD(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }

_DD()
[00001c22] 55         push ebp
[00001c23] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25] 51         push ecx
[00001c26] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29] 50         push eax        ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d] 51         push ecx        ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
[00001c33] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00001c36] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00001c39] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00001c3d] 7402       jz 00001c41
[00001c3f] ebfe       jmp 00001c3f
[00001c41] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00001c44] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00001c46] 5d         pop ebp
[00001c47] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0038) [00001c47]

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer