Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 10:32:31 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <v77s2f$1o4oh$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$6@dont-email.me> <v73tvs$qpi9$1@dont-email.me> <v74n81$13bn1$1@dont-email.me> <fafa57d75cf800c930c76530acd72148c77fff87@i2pn2.org> <v75ul2$19j7l$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 09:32:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="65978254551784bf68c380dad1a46784";
	logging-data="1839889"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19RqoAJ+nzLNePqaaSGcuDz"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sNYMM8Nl9DkaumVNr09leJ6qSq0=
Bytes: 4703

On 2024-07-16 14:04:18 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/16/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/15/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2024 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> *They disagree with the following*
>>> 
>>> In other words the fact that the directly executed DDD halts
>>> because the HHH(DDD) that it calls has already aborted its
>>> simulation proves these these two different instances of DDD
>>> are in different process states.
>> 
>> BUT must have the same behavior.
>> 
>>> 
>>> The state of needing to abort the input changes after it has
>>> already been aborted is the same as the state of being hungry
>>> changes after you have had something to eat.
>>> 
>> 
>> Can't. Since programs are unchanging, their properties can not change.
>> 
> 
> *WRONG*
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code

Your complier cannot produce self-modifying code.

-- 
Mikko