Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:57:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5ku9f$1as00$6@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <v5k6sv$2qsdr$3@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 23:57:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1404928"; 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: <v5k6sv$2qsdr$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9380
Lines: 205

On 6/27/24 1:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

Why? because it is true that you haven't shown an actual formal proof, 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========