Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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 23:21:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5vrnq$1oana$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$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>
 <v5vpht$1oana$8@i2pn2.org> <v5vrac$1fg22$2@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 03:21:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1845994"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v5vrac$1fg22$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6709
Lines: 140

On 7/1/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/1/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> It may seem that way when you don't bother to pay
> attention that this definition is contradicted
> by verified facts.

WHAT "Verified facts".

THe fact that DDD will halt since your HHH(DDD) retuns?

> 
> Indoctrination will cause this. The only cure is
> correct reasoning by assuming that everything that
> anyone ever told you about anything is possibly
> false until conclusively proven otherwise.

Nope, but failure to follow the defined rules gets you kick out of the club.

> 
> If everyone always did this then Nazi propaganda
> could not possibly have any chance of success.

But THEY Lied, and to could be shown so,

Just like your statements.

> 
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> 
> That is the same nutty bullshit as Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
> theorem. If there are no truth preserving operations in PA to
> either G or ~G then G has no truthmaker in PA making G not a
> truth-bearer in PA.

But there ARE a set of truth preserving operations in PA to show G, it 
is just that it takes an infinite number of them, so they don't 
constitute a proof.

Something you don't seem to understand.

> 
> We can say that this makes PA incomplete yet PA would be
> incomplete in the same way that dogs do not climb trees
> or lay eggs.
> 

Nope, it is incomplete, because there is a truth established by an 
infinite number of steps, that can not be proven in a finite number of 
steps.

that you can't count, doesn't make it false, it makes you stupid.

And by repeating your stupid remarks after being corrected, a LIAR.