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
Subject: Re: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies --- criteria is met
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:48:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5d0l2$10m6o$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4oaqu$f9p5$1@dont-email.me> <v50ena$2ecrp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v50fcc$2efr5$1@dont-email.me> <v51gli$2kgr3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51hgt$2kigj$1@dont-email.me> <v5393g$3286d$3@dont-email.me>
 <v53ul0$35vak$5@dont-email.me> <v560kp$3lqrq$2@dont-email.me>
 <v56i4t$3or0r$2@dont-email.me> <v56jfu$onl3$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v56m2g$3or0r$8@dont-email.me> <v58ki1$8e51$1@dont-email.me>
 <v59726$bko6$2@dont-email.me> <v5b6rj$qq4o$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5btcg$v0vb$3@dont-email.me> <v5cip4$10816$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5cksb$1mtc$1@news.muc.de> <v5cnb8$149dc$2@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 23:48:50 -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: <v5cnb8$149dc$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4160
Lines: 66

On 6/24/24 5:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2024 3:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> joes <noreply@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>> -- 
>>> Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche 
>>> Mathematik
>>> sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
>>
>> Or, in English, "You can't do arithmetic with dark numbers.  For actual
>> mathematics, they're completely useless.".
>>
>> Wolfgang Mückenheim is a crank in sci.math and de.sci.mathematik, one of
>> the few remaining ones after Google shut down their Usenet servers in
>> February.  He insists on the existence of something he calls "dark
>> numbers" and gives crank-like justifications for them, which do not hold
>> up under more robust questioning.
>>
> 
> In my case people have been disagreeing with the semantics of
> the x86 programming language for three years when they have
> insisted that D correctly simulated by H must have the same
> behavior as the directly executed D(D).

No, we fully understand its semantics.

Not sure you do, as you can't produce a trace by the decider that 
correctly goes past the decider by the requirements to follow those 
semantics.

> 
> *The following is a dumbed down version that is much more*
> *difficult to rebut without looking foolish*
> 
> 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().
> 

And the emulation by H0 and H1 will be IDETICAL to the point where H0 
stops its emulation. This is a fundamental fact.

If you disagree, please show what instruction, CORRECTLY EMULATED per 
the definition of the x86 instruction set, that is the point of divergance.

Your failure, for years to show this just indicate that you know you 
claim is false, but need to hang onto it to try to fabricate a lie for 
your false proof.