Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v5r7i1$euli$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 12:12:33 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 77 Message-ID: <v5r7i1$euli$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> <v5ocpr$3qno4$1@dont-email.me> <v5qh5o$aulp$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 11:12:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="edf92710cff98efa55bbf9e0df377222"; logging-data="490162"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ebp0pabhFt3ooKMKSwL44" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mu+XW2SQ5OlcE/X/dKnVSR48k6k= Bytes: 4862 On 2024-06-30 02:50:32 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/29/2024 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >> 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. >> > > In other words when HHH emulates the first four instructions > of DDD and HHH is an x86 emulator you have no idea that the > emulated HHH would emulate DDD again? It is your HHH so you should present the idea and a proof. So far I only know that you have not proven anything about your HHH. But there are good reasons to expect that HHH does not do anything interesting. -- Mikko