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
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:20:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5cv03$10m6o$4@i2pn2.org>
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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5btmn$v0vb$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 23:20:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1071320"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5btmn$v0vb$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5411
Lines: 109

On 6/24/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

So? What do we care about your POOP?

It isn't the Halting criteria, so you are just admitting to using strawmen.