Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0
 ---Boilerplate Reply
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 11:45:55 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <v58qsk$9a7f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v50o2t$2fh98$2@dont-email.me>
 <v51dc8$2jmrd$1@dont-email.me> <v53b0s$324b4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v53tjm$35vak$1@dont-email.me> <v565d9$3mg7e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v56iht$3or0r$4@dont-email.me> <v576d7$3sg5p$2@dont-email.me>
 <v576k6$3soh6$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 11:45:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e5925f67537ddc1e7989f143a80db8ce";
	logging-data="305391"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1925C+xAUtMHNdTjky2BZGg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6SgDFKyiWoqAZ+0LdGlLozeDrpU=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v576k6$3soh6$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6805

Op 22.jun.2024 om 20:53 schreef olcott:
> On 6/22/2024 1:50 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 22.jun.2024 om 15:11 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/22/2024 4:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:01 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 20.jun.2024 om 16:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 3:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 20.jun.2024 om 02:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> This shows all of the steps of HH0 simulating DDD
>>>>>>>>> calling a simulated HH0 simulating DDD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/HH0_(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>>>>>>>> *Some of the key instructions are color coded*
>>>>>>>>> GREEN---DebugStep Address
>>>>>>>>> RED-----HH Address
>>>>>>>>> YELLOW--All of the DDD instructions
>>>>>>>>> CYAN----Return from DebugStep to Decide_Halting_HH
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>> [000020a2] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020a3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>> [000020aa] e8f3f9ffff call 00001aa2 ; call H0
>>>>>>>>> [000020af] 83c404     add esp,+04   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020b2] 5d         pop ebp       ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020b3] c3         ret           ; never gets here
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020b3]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly which step of DDD emulated by H0 was emulated
>>>>>>>>> incorrectly such that this emulation would be complete?
>>>>>>>>> AKA DDD emulated by H0 reaches machine address [000020b3]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the simulation of a program with a loop of 5 iterations is 
>>>>>>>> aborted after 3 iterations, all instructions are correctly 
>>>>>>>> simulated. Nevertheless, it is an incorrect simulation, because 
>>>>>>>> it should simulate up to the final state of the program.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be helpful if you answer the actual question being asked
>>>>>>> right here and thus not answer some other question that was asked
>>>>>>> somewhere else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you do not understand that I answered the question why the 
>>>>>> simulation is incorrect, it is hopeless. The question which 
>>>>>> instruction is incorrect is not the right question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you say that something is incorrect and can't be specific
>>>>> then your rebuttal is pure bluster with no actual basis.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If ..., but that condition is not present, so the 'then' does not 
>>>> apply.
>>>> This makes the sentence completely superfluous. I would expect 
>>>> better from someone who claims to be an experienced programmer.
>>>>
>>>> But since I pointed out in a very detailed way, why it is incorrect, 
>>>> your reply shows that you do not understand where you are talking 
>>>> about, which then becomes utterly nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> The question which instruction is incorrectly simulated already 
>>>> shows your error. The error is not that an instruction is simulated 
>>>> incorrectly, but that some instruction are not simulated at all.
>>>> Why is that already over your head?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
>>> to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that
>>> this call DOES NOT RETURN.
>>>
>>> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
>>> to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that
>>> this call DOES RETURN.
>>>
>>> I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts.
>>>
>>
>> We know that 'verified fact' for you means 'my wish'.
> 
> Ignoramus?
> 
> 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().
> 

Exactly what I predicted. Olcott can not point to any error in what I 
said and just repeats his baseless claim.
In addition he removes this prediction from his citation, as well as the 
proof why his reasoning is wrong.
He probably not even wants to know the errors in his reasoning, because 
he would be too disappointed to learn that he spilled so many years on a 
basically wrong idea.
Olcott, it may give you rest and peace to accept that there is no way to 
prove your opinion.
I have had a similar experience. I thought I had some very clever ideas, 
but when I finally had the time to work them out, after my retirement, 
it turned out that some of them were known already and others were 
simply wrong. A disappointment, but when I accepted it, it gave me rest 
and time to do more useful things.