Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved
 criteria is met
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:41:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5i8v9$17ej1$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me> <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me>
 <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me> <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me> <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me>
 <v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me> <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org> <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de> <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v5el8c$24l4$4@news.muc.de> <v5evoi$1lgoi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5frvn$14bcm$6@i2pn2.org> <v5ft1p$1uc3o$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5fu24$14bcn$2@i2pn2.org> <v5fuf7$1up2o$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5fvvk$14bcn$4@i2pn2.org> <v5g1ue$1v8bm$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5g29u$14bcm$11@i2pn2.org> <v5g2nd$1v8bm$4@dont-email.me>
 <v5gsfv$15l89$2@i2pn2.org> <v5h5sd$24jbd$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:41:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1292897"; 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: <v5h5sd$24jbd$10@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4323
Lines: 66

On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> That is not the way that it actually works.
>>> That the the way that lies are defined.
>>
>> Source for you claim?
>>
>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system to 
>> that claim?
>>
> 
> _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.

Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so.

And, if H0 aborts is emulation, it only did a PARTIAL emulation and can 
not make claims about the future correct emulation of that input.

So, it can't says that the call to H0(DDD) can not return, only that it 
did not emulate that call to the point of possible return,

> 
> When DDD is correctly emulated by an 86 emulator at
> machine address 00002175 this is the sequence defined
> by the semantics of the x86 language:
> 
> *REPEAT UNTIL OUT-OF-MEMORY ERROR*
> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)

ABSOLUTELY NOI.

The semantics of the x86 language say that the call 000015d2 MUST be 
followed by the emulation of the instruction at 000015d2, or the 
emulation must be TERMINATE TOTALLY due to unspecified code.

IT CAN NOT just continue back at 00002172, as the instruction stream of 
the program won't get there.

> 
> The finite string input to H0 DOES SPECIFY THAT THE CALL
> FROM DDD TO H0(DDD) CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN IN EVERY SINGLE
> CASE WHERE DDD IS CORRECTLY EMULATED BY THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED
> H0 AND THIS H0 IS A PURE FUNCTION OF ITS INPUTS.
> 
> 

Nope. You are just proving you are just an ignorant pathological liar 
that doesn't undertstand what he is talking about.

To you, INCORRECT things are "obviously correct", so you have a 
pathology about Truth.