Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:18:23 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 186
Message-ID: <v5k6sv$2qsdr$3@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>
 <v5egoe$1ikpr$4@dont-email.me> <v5ggmi$21nkc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5h1bo$24jbd$1@dont-email.me> <v5j2qu$2kgmo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:18:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6b7ddfe8775f34f568700240d9d1b";
	logging-data="2978235"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+4j/volkL/LVmjZW9tdom1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mm2SWYaEUJLLElACKilt8jdAdn8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5j2qu$2kgmo$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8848

On 6/27/2024 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-26 12:25:28 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/26/2024 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-25 13:29:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> There is no such stipulation in the above text. The C code specifies
>>> and a comment in the machine code claims that H0 is called but don't
>>> say what H0 does.
>>>
>>>> It is stipulated the the correct simulation is ruled by
>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language.
>>>
>>> That does not fully define "correct simulation" but may specify enough
>>> of it to contradict the previous stipulation.
>>>
>>>> *This conclusively proves*
>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>> by H0 *CANNOT POSSIBLY RETURN*
>>>
>>> It proves nothing if no proof is shown.
>>>
>>
>> I will use your system of reasoning.
>> The semantics of decimal arithmetic prove that 2 + 3 = 5.
> 
> You nave not shown the proof.
> 

That is a stupid thing to say.
When you try to disagree with arithmetic that proves
you are a troll that wants to infinitely delay any and
all closure at the possible expense of life on Earth.

The same system of reasoning that I use to show how
the input to H0(DD) does not halt.

*Truth preserving operations applied to expressions of*
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========