Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:43:08 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <v5mi5t$3cmj8$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>
 <v5mgd9$3cds2$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 16:43:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1d53ffa9559a607513cb041b1d4db9b3";
	logging-data="3562088"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zEGIN3uAjsSnLQ7UVNjW6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/+uxYIIrsKVDnv2h3q4oCKiG0jY=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v5mgd9$3cds2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5426

Op 28.jun.2024 om 16:12 schreef olcott:
> 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

Except that this trace only proved that I am right. The simulator is 
unable to simulate itself correctly, which is shown in this trace.