Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 14:40:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <v73tvs$qpi9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me> <v7013v$2ccv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v70nt7$61d8$6@dont-email.me>
 <58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org>
 <v71mjh$bp3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <1173a460ee95e0ca82c08abecdefc80ba86646ac@i2pn2.org>
 <v71okl$bvm2$1@dont-email.me>
 <5f6daf68f1b4ffac854d239282bc811b5b806659@i2pn2.org>
 <v71ttb$crk4$1@dont-email.me>
 <60e7a93cb8cec0afb68b3e40a0e82e9d63fa8e2a@i2pn2.org>
 <v721po$h4kr$1@dont-email.me> <v73td3$qkp2$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 21:40:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="13997779445f04dacae82f025877e637";
	logging-data="878153"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ZiPkrn9pDlyNTnPvyg4G2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DfyMRHS0UNqmr7dqFEkjwLGXkec=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v73td3$qkp2$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3718

On 7/15/2024 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 15.jul.2024 om 04:33 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination
>>>> of simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>
>>> Excpet, as I have shown, it doesn't.
>>>
>>> Your problem is you keep on ILEGALLY changing the input in your 
>>> argument because you have misdefined what the input is.
>>>
>>
>> _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]
>>
>> The input *is* the machine address of this finite
>> string of bytes: 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3
>>
> 
> It seems that you do not understand x86 language. The input is not a 
> string of bytes, but an address (00002163). This points to the starting 
> of the code of DDD. But a simulation needs a program, not a function 
> calling undefined other functions. Therefore, all functions called by 
> DDD (such as HHH) are included in the code to simulate.

*The input is the machine address of this finite*
*string of bytes: 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3*

You are talking about the behavior specified by that finite
string. When you say that a finite string *is not* a finite
string you are disagreeing with the law of identity.

Every rebuttal to my work disagrees with one tautology of another.
It is the fact that DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation
that makes it impossible for DDD correctly emulated by HHH to halt.

Everyone disagrees with this entirely on the basis of the strawman
deception (damned lie) that some other DDD somewhere else has
different behavior.



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