Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:34:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <v5vsff$1fqfa$2@dont-email.me>
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>
 <v5vrnq$1oana$10@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 05:34:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be8a74d1ebb79f081dc40b5f7175e5aa";
	logging-data="1567210"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+plpPd8anv6Nxn7z6A/0LW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iyLdpvdQgRq+pR9snLw7zuEj2pg=
In-Reply-To: <v5vrnq$1oana$10@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6838

On 7/1/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

Diagonalization conclusively proves otherwise and you know it.
Maybe the issue is that you are fundamentally a liar.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer