Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 09:12:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <v5mgd9$3cds2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v58m12$8mmo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v59797$brmn$1@dont-email.me> <v5b7nv$qvrb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5btf3$v0vb$4@dont-email.me> <v5chru$10816$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5cn01$149dc$1@dont-email.me> <v5ebvr$1hs89$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5efod$1ikpr$1@dont-email.me> <v5ejau$1iq57$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5eup8$1lar1$2@dont-email.me> <v5f1nm$1lp16$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5f246$1m2fl$1@dont-email.me> <v5f3fg$1lp16$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5f3j8$1m2fl$2@dont-email.me> <v5f54f$1lp16$3@dont-email.me>
 <v5f5sd$1mcif$1@dont-email.me> <v5ght9$21jrt$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5h3rd$24jbd$6@dont-email.me> <v5jbub$2m18t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5k72o$2qsdr$4@dont-email.me> <v5lqul$386u3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:12:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8e198617313100a552662932ac49ce17";
	logging-data="3553154"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Euge02b04LD5NMPj7umol"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FoS/IwdtXVAPpAo/PqpSMRhmWDw=
In-Reply-To: <v5lqul$386u3$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5637

On 6/28/2024 3:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 27.jun.2024 om 19:21 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/27/2024 4:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 26.jun.2024 om 15:07 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/26/2024 3:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 25.jun.2024 om 21:30 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might be true, but it is irrelevant, because the simulated H0 
>>>>>>> is aborted prematurely. The simulating H0 aborts after two cycles, 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I am not even talking about a simulating halt decider yet dumbo*
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither am I. Why do you mention a simulating halt decider? (Who is 
>>>>> the dumbo?)
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can't begin to comprehend x86 emulators then our conversation
>>>>>> is dead right here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunately, I am very well able to do so.
>>>>> But it seems that you have to learn a few basic facts about 
>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For every x86 emulator Ho that can possibly exist
>>>>>> at machine address 0000217a...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you repeat your claim without showing any error in my reasoning.
>>>>> Therefore, I repeat again:
>>>>>
>>>>> It might be true hat H0 cannot return, 
>>>>
>>>> As soon as you say that you are certain that it is true
>>>> we can move on to its relevance. That it is true is as
>>>> simple as arithmetic. Why it is relevant is much more
>>>> difficult.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I cannot be certain, because you keep changing your definitions and 
>>> there are no clear specifications for H0.
>>
>> You have to fix your own ignorance of the C programming
>> language and the x86 programming language.
> 
> Irrelevant nonsense ignored.
> 
>>
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>> int H0(ptr P);
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    H0(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    H0(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> _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 x86 emulator H0 cannot possibly return.
>>
>>
> 
> Repeating your claim does not show any error in my reasoning.
> 
> Your claim is a contradictio in terminus.
> 1) It is impossible for a simulator to simulate itself correctly. 

*I have already proven otherwise*
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

*I have standardized the naming conventions for code and my paper*

HHH(DDD) and HHH1(DDD) are the standard names for DDD input
DDD calls HHH(DDD) and HHH1 is identical to HHH.

HH(DD,DD) and HH1(DD,DD) are the standard names for (DD,DD) input
DD calls HH(DD,DD) and HH1 is identical to HH.

Now that I standardized the names and provided a full
color-coded execution trace of HHH(DDD) your counter-factual
claims are clearly refuted.

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