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: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 07:39:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 156
Message-ID: <v60se2$1kr1q$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$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>
 <v5vsff$1fqfa$2@dont-email.me>
 <e9c681b90a30f1c1c0b14c970675c5d6b104f535@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 14:39:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be8a74d1ebb79f081dc40b5f7175e5aa";
	logging-data="1731642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/sIpStX7OGAcry2xcGDdfT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TWwNtNnwQ/dvtK+C/uOlav76WX0=
In-Reply-To: <e9c681b90a30f1c1c0b14c970675c5d6b104f535@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7708

On 7/2/2024 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/1/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> How?
> 
> I call your bluff, show your "cards" or FOLD.
> 

That is not the way it works, you made a false claim and I
call your bluff on this false claim. You must provide a linked
source that agrees.

 >>> 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.

*This source says nothing like what you claim*
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom

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