Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 07:28:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v590sp$rmf0$3@i2pn2.org>
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$3@dont-email.me> <v578a9$onl3$16@i2pn2.org>
 <v579lm$3t97b$2@dont-email.me> <v57b2q$onl3$19@i2pn2.org>
 <v57ok9$5d7$3@dont-email.me> <v57pcq$onl3$21@i2pn2.org>
 <v584ou$5ski$1@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 11:28:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="907744"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v584ou$5ski$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3865
Lines: 72

On 6/22/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2024 7:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/22/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Right, so what do you do when you run out of instructions to simulate?
>>
>> Your logic just BLOWS UP.
>>
> 
> That you are too stupid to see an infinite recursion behavior
> pattern does not mean that I am not correct.

Except it is proven to not be the infinite recursion behavior if H0 is a 
decider.

Just a finite recursion pattern.

So, which LIE are you holding to:

That this is an infinite recursion pattern, when every level of H0 will 
break the pattern as it is a decider and not let itself go on forever

That H0 is a decider, because it isn't "smart" enough to see it is 
caught in an infinte loop an get out of it, so it just fails to answer 
at ANY level

That H0 is a "Pure Function" and thus *ALL* calls to it with the same 
parameters will act the same.


So, which *LIE* is it?


(Confirmed liar Peter Olcott)

> 
>>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This exposes the LIE of your system. YOu CAN'T correctly x86 emulate a 
>> partial program, becuase it isn't prpgram with behavior to emulate.
>>
>> PERIOD.
>>
>> That means, the call to H0(DDD), to have any actual meaning, must 
>> incluede *ALL* the instrutions in memory that are going to be used as 
>> part of the input, and thus, DDD is TIED to the H0 that we started 
>> with, so your "trick" of changing it is shows to just be a LIE.
>>
>>
>> You just don't understand that behavior is determined of an SPECIFIC 
>> program, a specific instance of the template AFTER pairing it with the 
>> decider it is to foil, and when you ask about other deciders looking 
>> at THIS input, the input can't change.
>>
>> There goes your two decades down the drain.
>