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: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:28:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <v5mkrn$3cibm$8@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> <v5gidq$221q3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5h34g$24jbd$4@dont-email.me> <v5j15p$2k7r0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5k688$2qsdr$2@dont-email.me> <v5lo1l$3843b$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 17:28:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8e198617313100a552662932ac49ce17";
	logging-data="3557750"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19c9D41Fj8zK/NDOxU0CG1S"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bf1cffi1XqfAyRTZrID/qjq3UCs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5lo1l$3843b$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4134

On 6/28/2024 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-27 17:07:20 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> Until you agree with this we cannot move on to the next
>> and final point that proves I am correct. Proving that
>> point may possibly take longer than the rest of my life
>> so let's not delay this OK?
>>
>> [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.
> 
> If it is too hard to prove that H0 has the properties you claim
> then an agreement is unlikely. Perhaps you should Δ instead and
> just assume it has the properties you consider essential. The
> full proof of your claim does not need much more.
> 

It is not at all too hard to prove. It is easy to prove
if you know, C, x86 emulators and the x86 language
sufficiently well and impossible otherwise.

https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly return.

The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant
because that is not the behavior of the input. Deciders
compute the mapping from their actual finite string input
to an output by a sequence of finite string transformations.

In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution
trace of the behavior of DDD correctly emulated by HHH.

The behavior of this input must include and cannot ignore
the recursive emulation specified by the fact that DDD is
calling its own emulator. That people think they can just
pretend that this is not happening is ridiculous.


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