Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v5r7i1$euli$1@dont-email.me>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v5r7i1$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