| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5cv62$10m6p$2@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:23:46 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v5cv62$10m6p$2@i2pn2.org> 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> <v5cd6d$128l4$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 23:23:46 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1071321"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <v5cd6d$128l4$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8095 Lines: 153 On 6/24/24 2:16 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. > No, you claim something proves something bur refuse to actually form the proof. The claim of the existance of a proof is not a proof of the claim.