Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0
 ---Boilerplate Reply
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 13:16:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <v5cd6d$128l4$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$4@dont-email.me> <v5bf4l$s2cu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:16:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438";
	logging-data="1122980"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+qGjt54o7OZpMKanjLqmFh"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ebntKErMjK/2C8tnsKx2ssF3vIo=
In-Reply-To: <v5bf4l$s2cu$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7895

On 6/24/2024 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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?

That seems to be a stupid thing to say. I insist
that I do agree and then you ask why I do not agree,
is what a Troll would say.

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