Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:29:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <v5egoe$1ikpr$4@dont-email.me>
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> <v5e3df$1gco9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:29:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="422dd2162c45ab1a09b084523bb5ca66";
	logging-data="1659707"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19CQ7DFiUEZ55ij+9hYXXLa"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hs6eGoEEKDWeg3Gq9WujPugenhA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5e3df$1gco9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6761

On 6/25/2024 4:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-24 13:52:23 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> If you want to claim that 2 + 3 = 5 you must show some basis for the claim.
> One obvious source of such basis is Peano Arithmetic. Likewise, if you say
> "WRONG" you must show some basis for the claim. When the statement claimed
> "WRONG" is about x86 programming language, an sobvious source for such 
> basis
> is Intel's documentation.
> 
>>>> Otherwise we could say that for the decimal integers
>>>> 2 + 3 = 17 and the semantics of arithmetic does not disagree.
> 
> No, you can only say that you don't know any disageement between them.
> Without a proof threse is a possibility of an unknown disagreement.
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> What is shown above does not prove that the call to 15d3 does not
> return, nor whether there is H0 or HHH0 or something else at that
> location.
> 

It is stipulated that DDD is correctly emulated by the
H0 at machine address 000015d2.

It is stipulated the the correct simulation is ruled by
the semantics of the x86 programming language.

*This conclusively proves*
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 *CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN*

I am unwilling to talk about anything else with you until
you agree to this.


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