Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Because I have repeated this same point 500 times in the last
 three years...
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 08:22:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <v807vd$2rabc$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v7uvbq$2h6oq$1@dont-email.me> <v7vh4j$2ndo6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 15:22:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="98ef4f11d97010b63c53911c6d37ff8b";
	logging-data="2992492"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RDY0vRkGRO5xA8mkzrOwr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:83VsI8+eRjZt7/YzB+2gr49kFrI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7vh4j$2ndo6$1@dont-email.me>

On 7/26/2024 1:53 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 26.jul.2024 om 03:49 schreef olcott:
>> If you understand the x86 language and can't tell how DDD
>> emulated by HHH differs from DDD emulated by HHH1 by the
>> following then you are probably lying about understanding
>> the x86 language.
> 
> We understand it perfectly. HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

You are too stupid to know that a non-halting computation
cannot be emulated to completion because completion does
not exist.

On this stupid basis you say that because HHH does not simulate
DDD to a completion that does not exist that DDD is simulated
incorrectly. Unlike pure ad hominem rebuttals I point out how
and why what you say is stupidly incorrect.

> HH1 does a correct simulation, but HHH does an incomplete and therefore 
> incorrect simulation. The incomplete simulation does not show the full 
> behaviour of DDD.
> Since skipping x86 code is against the semantics of the x86 language, it 
> is clear where the error is.
> 
>>
>> *I did annotate it a little better this time*
>>
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>> int HHH1(ptr P);
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>    HHH1(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> *You really don't need to know one damn thing else besides this*
>> *You really don't need to know one damn thing else besides this*
>> *You really don't need to know one damn thing else besides this*
>>
>> All that you have to know is that HHH and HHH1 are x86 emulators
>> and that HHH sees that same repeated state (first four lines of DDD)
>> that anyone knowing the x86 language can see.
>>
>> _DDD()
>> [00002177] 55         push ebp
>> [00002178] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [0000217a] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
>> [0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
>> [00002184] 83c404     add esp,+04
>> [00002187] 5d         pop ebp
>> [00002188] c3         ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002188]
>>
>> _main()
>> [00002197] 55         push ebp
>> [00002198] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [0000219a] 6877210000 push 00002177 ' push DDD
>> [0000219f] e863f3ffff call 00001507 ; call HH1
>> [000021a4] 83c404     add esp,+04
>> [000021a7] 33c0       xor eax,eax
>> [000021a9] 5d         pop ebp
>> [000021aa] c3         ret
>> Size in bytes:(0020) [000021aa]
>>
>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>> [00002197][001037fb][00000000] 55         push ebp
>> [00002198][001037fb][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [0000219a][001037f7][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
>> [0000219f][001037f3][000021a4] e863f3ffff call 00001507 ; call HHH1
>> New slave_stack at:10389f
>>
>> // emulates 1st instance of DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138a7
>> [00002177][00113897][0011389b] 55         push ebp
>> [00002178][00113897][0011389b] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [0000217a][00113893][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
>> [0000217f][0011388f][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
>> New slave_stack at:14e2c7
>>
>> // emulates 2nd instance of DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:15e2cf
>> [00002177][0015e2bf][0015e2c3] 55         push ebp
>> [00002178][0015e2bf][0015e2c3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [0000217a][0015e2bb][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
>> [0000217f][0015e2b7][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
>> New slave_stack at:198cef
>>
>> // emulates 3rd instance of DDD that calls HHH(DDD)
>> [00002177][001a8ce7][001a8ceb] 55         push ebp
>> [00002178][001a8ce7][001a8ceb] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [0000217a][001a8ce3][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
>> [0000217f][001a8cdf][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
> 
> This is the error in HHH. HHH is programmed to print after two cycles 
> that there is an infinite recursion, which is not true, after which it 
> aborts and halts, making the simulation incorrect.
> 
> HHH is simply unable to decide about finite recursions.
> 
> void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
>    if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
> }
> 
> It decides after N recursions that there is an infinite recursion, which 
> is incorrect. It does not see the difference between an finite and an 
> infinite recursion.
> 
>>
>> // returns to 1st instance of DDD emulated by HHH1
>> [00002184][00113897][0011389b] 83c404     add esp,+04
>> [00002187][0011389b][000015bc] 5d         pop ebp
>> [00002188][0011389f][0003a980] c3         ret
>>
>> // return to main
>> [000021a4][001037fb][00000000] 83c404     add esp,+04
>> [000021a7][001037fb][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax
>> [000021a9][001037ff][00000018] 5d         pop ebp
>> [000021aa][00103803][00000000] c3         ret
>> Number of Instructions Executed(352831) == 5266 Pages
>>
> Olcott's psychology is intriguing. At the one hand he is crying for 
> help. He has some ideas which he cannot prove. Therefore he is begging 
> the exports to help him with a proof.
> When the experts prove that there are errors in his idea and show him a 
> way to improve his idea, he does not have the mental intelligence to 
> even consider the possibility that there is something incorrect in his 
> ideas. He cannot show any error in their proofs, but he does not want to 
> accept it.
> Therefore he uses the excuse that the experts must be lying in order to 
> be able to ignore the proofs that his ideas are wrong.
> Then he keeps repeating his proven incorrect ideas, without any 
> evidence, probably hoping that if it is repeated often enough, it will 
> become true.
> That is not how logic works.
> No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times 
> olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that 
> these ideas are incorrect.

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