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 18:09:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 233
Message-ID: <v621b9$1qutj$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@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>
 <v620nf$1qutj$1@dont-email.me>
 <adab42d299905f4219330596cccb5184f5e09597@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 01:09:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29a678b7ecb7074967021c8dcb9f1179";
	logging-data="1932211"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18hq/jYv7S7u9jA5vD+Unns"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+k9lvLPypTOW5fxO9pKRIfz0Evc=
In-Reply-To: <adab42d299905f4219330596cccb5184f5e09597@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11125

On 7/2/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/2/24 6:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========