Path: ...!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 17:58:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 199
Message-ID: <v620nf$1qutj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@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>
 <v60se2$1kr1q$5@dont-email.me>
 <04db95a103cfbcb76bd6082752ed89932cfce5d5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 00:58:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29a678b7ecb7074967021c8dcb9f1179";
	logging-data="1932211"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX190HUz4IiJm1Uwan4RRuYAi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CPCW++fRSn33/Wuqzy5wyLBugBQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <04db95a103cfbcb76bd6082752ed89932cfce5d5@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 9694

On 7/2/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/2/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Of course that is the way it works.
> 
> You claim you can show something, and I ask you to show it.
> 
> Failure just means you admit to being a liar.
> 
> You need to show your proof, that you can form a "Diagonalization" proof 
> that Godel's sentence is not true.
> 
> You need to either present the proof, admit you lied that you had one, 
> or keep being reminded that you have been a liar and can't provide the 
> proof you claimed you had.
> 
>>
>>  >>> But there ARE a set of truth preserving operations in PA to show G,
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========