Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:44:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5vpht$1oana$8@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$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> <v5h558$24jbd$7@dont-email.me>
 <v5jcas$2m18t$2@dont-email.me> <v5k7ju$2qsdr$5@dont-email.me>
 <v5mcvo$1cgj0$3@i2pn2.org> <v5mklg$3cibm$7@dont-email.me>
 <v5mo8a$1d3t3$2@i2pn2.org> <v5mqge$3e4fd$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5msjt$1d3t3$9@i2pn2.org> <v5mtba$3elj0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5n2ah$1d3t3$10@i2pn2.org> <v5n2sk$3fm1k$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5po6i$1h5u1$1@i2pn2.org> <v5pp9m$2jk8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5rcrh$fkks$1@dont-email.me> <v5s44b$jvgt$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5tp2t$vsqr$1@dont-email.me> <v5u97g$12udb$6@dont-email.me>
 <v5vi62$1oanb$3@i2pn2.org> <v5vljj$1b0k9$3@dont-email.me>
 <v5vocu$1oanb$10@i2pn2.org> <v5vp03$1fbi8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 02:44:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1845994"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5vp03$1fbi8$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5107
Lines: 91

On 7/1/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/1/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/1/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/1/2024 3:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:20 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It cannot possibly return, because HHH aborts itself one cycle too 
>>>>>> early, showing that the emulation is incorrect. If that is over 
>>>>>> your head, try to learn how x86 instructions work.
>>>>>
>>>>> _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]
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CAN'T BE.
>>>>
>>>> A "Correct Emulation" is one that produces the same result as the 
>>>> program at the input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which can only possibly occur be disregarding the semantics
>>> of the x86 language. Liars would do that ignoramuses would do
>>> that. Everyone with the equivalent of a BSCS would know that
>>> what I said is true.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why do you say that? That is EXACTLY the definition of Correct Emulation. 
> 
> 
> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.

And denying definitions is just lying.

> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
> }
> 
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
> }
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
> that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, 
> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
> so that itself can terminate normally.
> 
> SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT
> SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT
> SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT
> 

No, DDD does halt if HHH is a decider and HHH(DDD) returns.

The fact that HHH need to abort its emulation to be a decider doesn't 
mean it gets to be wrong about the question put to it as a halt decider.

It just shows that Halting is not Computable.