Path: ...!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 --- Why Lie?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 18:35:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5a7vs$smd4$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v598l4$c4if$1@dont-email.me> <v59p13$smd5$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5a4qc$h08n$1@dont-email.me> <v5a5a1$smd5$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v5a657$hgsg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 22:35:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="940452"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5a657$hgsg$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3723
Lines: 72

On 6/23/24 6:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/23/2024 4:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/23/24 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2024 1:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/23/24 9:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp
>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH0
>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the semantics of the x86 programming language
>>>>> when DDD correctly emulated by H0 calls H0(DDD) this call
>>>>> cannot possibly return.
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise according to the semantics of arithmetic for
>>>>> decimal integers: 2 + 3 = 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone disagreeing with these two statements is WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NOw, if you REALLY mean just can H0 simulate this input to a final 
>>>> state, the answer is WHO CARES.
>>>>
>>>> But I will put out a few comments on errors in your presentation\.
>>>>
>>>> First, if you ONLY have the bytes presented, then the answer becomes 
>>>> trivial, as H0 HAS to stop emulating when it gets to the call 
>>>> instruction, as there is no data at address 000015d2 defined to 
>>>> simulate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What a God damned liar.
>>> https://liarparadox.org/HH0_(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>>
>>
>> Which begins its trace at main, not DDD:
>>
> 
> You knew that there IS an HH0 and lied about it.
> That makes you a God damned liar.
> 
> Of course C programs begin at main() Liar !!!
> 

But you weren't talking about it, so your trace isn't the claimed trace, 
so you are again the LIAR.


You keep on talking about the decider taking as its input, the machine 
that calls it, and what THAT DECIDERS trace shows.

That will not begin with main.

THAT is the input that you NEED to show to "verify" your claim, and that 
you have never done.

So, you are just showing that either you don't know what you are talking 
about, or intentionally trying to use double speak to avoid revealing 
your error.

In the above program, if the listed bytes are all that is available, 
HHH0(DDD) absolutely can not trace more than 4 instructions.

Thus, to make you claim, the input can't be just what you show. PERIOD.

It must include all of the memory that the trace would go to, which 
means all of HHH0 and everything it calls, so when you change the 
decider, you have a different input, so can't equate them without lying.