Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!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
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:52:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <v5btmn$v0vb$6@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>
 <v5775h$3soh6$5@dont-email.me> <v58r5s$9j01$1@dont-email.me>
 <v597og$brmn$3@dont-email.me> <v5b7cm$qtn6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 15:52:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438";
	logging-data="1016811"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VGkn67AXuwVBASwCDzQRb"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VvYyVzNvaj0IYjT5fOimGzroJ24=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5b7cm$qtn6$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5295

On 6/24/2024 2:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-23 13:25:36 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/23/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-22 19:03:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Semantics of the x86 programming language does not specifiy emulation
>>> or correctness of emulation.
>>>
>>
>> WRONG!
> 
> Unless you point where in Intel's documentation emulation or correctness
> of emulation is specified you have no basis to say "WRONG".
> 

Not at all. That is the same as saying that 2 + 3 = 5
is wrong until proven by PA.

>> Otherwise we could say that for the decimal integers
>> 2 + 3 = 17 and the semantics of arithmetic does not disagree.
> 
> I can believe you couls but I would not.
> 
>> The semantics of arithmetic agrees that for the decimal
>> integers 2 + 3 = 5.
> 
> Intel's processors seem to agree, too. But I havn't checked every one.
> 

_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 call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.

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