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: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 07:15:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <v68o46$39dkv$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org>
 <v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me> <v632ta$23ohm$2@dont-email.me>
 <v63jej$26loi$6@dont-email.me> <v63s4h$28goi$2@dont-email.me>
 <v63s92$28dpi$3@dont-email.me> <v63t3r$28goi$6@dont-email.me>
 <v63tpd$28dpi$8@dont-email.me>
 <67a72a6769c3e0d96ba03aea4988153781ba01a0@i2pn2.org>
 <v665rb$2oun1$9@dont-email.me>
 <f808427bbd01195fa8ff6793e98c2ca162ac98de@i2pn2.org>
 <v668tr$2pc84$3@dont-email.me>
 <32a0b6d30a6fd14b8558749c01badb0692661dcf@i2pn2.org>
 <v66gmq$2qr6f$1@dont-email.me> <v687i1$36o47$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 14:15:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f325a973008a37eaa6ec545239278e3d";
	logging-data="3454623"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19vnOyh/8qwaBT+B4KbZBb8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CLRbKHKrJiadB8pCfJK8qETMa7Y=
In-Reply-To: <v687i1$36o47$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6118

On 7/5/2024 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-04 15:56:10 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/4/2024 10:07 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:43:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 7/4/2024 8:38 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:50:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 5:38 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 11:21:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 11:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 3:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 05:55 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly,
>>>>>>>>>>> you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>         int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>>>>>         int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>         {
>>>>>>>>>>>           return H(main, 0);
>>>>>>>>>>>         }
>>>>>>>>>>> You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it 
>>>>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>> not return.
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD is making it unnecessarily complex, but has the same 
>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>> main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>> HHH is unable to simulate main correctly, because it unable to
>>>>>>>>> simulate itself correctly.
>>>>>>>>> The 'unless phrase' is misleading, because we are talking about 
>>>>>>>>> a H
>>>>>>>>> *does* abort. Dreaming of one that does not abort, is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>> The correctly simulated main would stop, because the simulated 
>>>>>>>>> H is
>>>>>>>>> only one cycle away from its return when its simulation is 
>>>>>>>>> aborted.
>>>>>>>> HHH is required to report on what would happen if HHH did not 
>>>>>>>> abort.
>>>>>>>> HHH is forbidden from getting its own self stuck in infinite
>>>>>>>> execution. Emulated instances of itself is not its actual self.
>>>>>>> No. HHH is simulating itself, not a different function that does not
>>>>>>> abort. All calls are instances of the same code with the same
>>>>>>> parameters. They all do the same thing: aborting.
>>>>>> HHH always meets its abort criteria first because it always sees at
>>>>>> least one fully execution trace of DDD before the next inner one. It
>>>>>> is stupidly incorrect to think that HHH can wait on the next one.
>>>>> Stupidly incorrect is thinking that the next one wouldn’t abort just
>>>>> because that part isn’t simulated.
>>>> Unless the outermost one aborts none of them do.
>>> Since the outermost aborts, all of them do.
>>>
>>
>> This the same same as saying the when everyone in
>> a foot race is in single file and 15 feet behind
>> the one in front of them that everyone will come
>> in first place. No you are wrong.
> 
> That "first place" is not in "the same" but your own lie.
> In a turthful paraphrase there would be "to the fininsh line"
> or something like that instead.
> 

_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]

When HHH(DDD) simulates its input that calls HHH(DDD)
to simulate its input that simulates its input the outer
HHH has seen the first four instructions repeated, the
inner HHH has not seen the first four instructions repeated.
The outer one has met its abort criteria, the inner one
has not met its abort criteria.

If you now the x86 language you would already know that.

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