Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:03:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <v5775h$3soh6$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me> <v56sk3$p1du$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v56tfv$3ql1v$2@dont-email.me> <v570n5$onl4$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v571lc$3rrgk$1@dont-email.me> <v57603$onl3$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v576cg$3soh6$2@dont-email.me> <v576nv$onl3$14@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 21:03:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52f855e26d0a069f32049d753a1d455d";
	logging-data="4088358"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zSO/fn0ucm/E5hQBXaolN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rHx/7QTFkZvTmcGQPu1A1gZ6Fv4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v576nv$onl3$14@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4150

On 6/22/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/22/2024 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/22/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH0(DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input to HHH0(DDD) includes itself.
>>>>>> The input to HHH1(DDD) DOES NOT include itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is stipulated that correct emulation is defined by the
>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language and nothing else.
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus, your emulation traces show that your "Simulating Halt 
>>>>> Deciders" do not do a "Correct Simulation" 
>>>>
>>>> Apparently your ADD preventing you from paying close attention
>>>> to ALL of my words.
>>>>
>>>> *Function names adapted to correspond to my updated paper*
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>
>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>
>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>
>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>
>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>
>>>> then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that
>>>> its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly return.
>>>
>>> Since your H0 has never demonstrated that is actually DOES the 
>>> correct simulation per your stipulation, 
>>
>> Liar
>>
> 
> Then where is it?
> 
When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that
when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD)
cannot possibly return.

_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not
call H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1
that its call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior
as the directly executed DDD().

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