Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 10:23:39 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <v5ocpr$3qno4$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> <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> <v5mkrn$3cibm$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 09:23:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ef6da5e05d63bfb2c13ebab8d1b7b889";
	logging-data="4022020"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/odZeXAw6tn7J3hI+aNfW1"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ae6ZwY1xpMB+siBoU2FvMv1jPp4=
Bytes: 4121

On 2024-06-28 15:28:55 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

Then prove it. The following does not even mention H0 and therefore
does not prove anything about it.

>  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 phrase "any pure function x86 emulator HHH" is incorrect. In particular,
the word "any" is wrong. At 217a DDD calls 15d2 and that is the only call
in DDD. The function at 15d2 either is or is not pure, we just don't konw
as long as no proof is shown; and it either is ir is not a x86
emulator, we just don't as long as no proof is shown; and it ehither does
or does not return, we just don't know as long as no proof is shown.
It does not make sense to say "cannot": as long as you dont't prove that
it does return and don't prove that it does not return the main point
remains unproven.

-- 
Mikko