Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 11:44:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <v6jpe5$1eul0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me> <v6ikv5$19h6q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jguf$1ctoi$5@dont-email.me> <v6ji1d$1dpoc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jig0$1ctoi$11@dont-email.me> <v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 18:44:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b5da22ad5ca0d0ccd5a9478202582a44";
	logging-data="1538720"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Bug6fDHHgiHNm/6LN1CZH"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QE06RA9pZsH2wCtF7BfBgVMkc80=
In-Reply-To: <v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4177

On 7/9/2024 10:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 09.jul.2024 om 16:46 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/9/2024 9:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Indeed, no such HHH exists. This proves that HHH cannot possibly 
>>> simulate itself correctly.
>>
>> "Correctly" means must do whatever the x86 code specifies.
> 
> And since the x86 code never specifies an abort, it is incorrect to 
> abort halfway a simulation that would halt. We know it would halt, 
> because other simulators show that it halts when HHH is correctly 
> simulated.
> If you want to deny this truth, point to the specification of the x86 
> language where it says that a program must be aborted. It is irrational 
> to defend an unneeded abort with a reference to the x86 specifications.
> 
>> You are in psychological denial causing you to be irrational.
> 
> Illogical and irrelevant remarks ignored. I know olcott has problems to 
> recognize the truth, so I do not feel offended.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> _DDD()
>>>> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
>>>> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
>>>> [00002174] c3         ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>>>>
>>>> *When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function*
>>>> *HHH x86 emulator that can possibly exist* which calls
>>>> an emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat this process until the
>>>> emulated DDD is aborted.
>>>
> 
> And the fact *that* it aborts, makes the simulation incorrect (as Sipser 
> would agree with), because the X86 code does not specify an abort at 
> that point. Therefore, the only conclusion must be: No such HHH exists.

HHH is fully operational in the x86utm operating system.

_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]

When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function x86
emulator HHH calls an emulated HHH(DDD) this call cannot
possibly return. This prevents the emulated DDD from ever
reaching past its own machine address of 0000216b and halting.

HHH is required to report that it must abort the emulaton of
its input. HHH cannot correctly report that DDD need not be
aborted on the basis of the behavior of a directly executed
DDD(DDD) after HHH has already aborted its emulated DDD.
The sequence of sequence, selection and iteration cannot be
ignored.





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