Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 11:43:49 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <v5bf4l$s2cu$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> <v58qsk$9a7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5981p$brmn$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 11:43:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0323dfe8a372c698ca7e82aae37d6d3e";
	logging-data="919966"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/crcIoz5LA4pjGVKDJAd/H"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:diskUcM8LIZORmwAUP82jHLoZUs=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v5981p$brmn$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7438

Op 23.jun.2024 om 15:30 schreef olcott:
> On 6/23/2024 4:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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'.
>>>
> 
> Is it merely my wish that for decimal integers 2 + 3 = 5
> or is this according to the semantics of arithmetic?
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> The semantics of the x86 programming language conclusively proves
> 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]
> 
> The semantics of arithmetic conclusively proves that
> for the decimal integers 2 + 3 = 5.
> 

So, why don't you agree?