| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5cd6d$128l4$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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