| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v8uqns$25lht$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <abc@def.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: behavior and description --- Richard still only has pure bluster Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 22:47:08 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 175 Message-ID: <v8uqns$25lht$1@dont-email.me> References: <v8tcqm$1l0av$1@dont-email.me> <9cdb7748ed3906718c6fa7354c81479c24c76885@i2pn2.org> <v8tlov$1nl6s$1@dont-email.me> <98c9d58d07784afeb7df85b85d468edc2c5a82ab@i2pn2.org> <v8ujp7$20c5q$1@dont-email.me> <931e370770170d2392a73c564552d84270526201@i2pn2.org> <v8uncm$255gv$2@dont-email.me> <15ded861fa978eb287e35a859118e7ed48ae6d84@i2pn2.org> <v8uoj6$25e3e$1@dont-email.me> <e622a920b2fbcce6b0d18be5a0265aa16ec4c7b5@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 05:47:09 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6826d85dca534e829aa60949a8b0d61"; logging-data="2283069"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Yy1JIpsFP6ZQc9R8yPlk1" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:cXyyp4zUK7sGe51YRjZ/YKgRtV4= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <e622a920b2fbcce6b0d18be5a0265aa16ec4c7b5@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 8804 On 8/6/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 8/6/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 8/6/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 8/6/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/6/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 8/6/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 8/6/2024 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/6/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/6/2024 12:02 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 06 Aug 2024 09:43:30 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> Understanding that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot >>>>>>>>>> possibly reach >>>>>>>>>> its own "return" instruction is a mandatory prerequisite to >>>>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is nothing to discuss after agreeing with your conclusion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Everyone remains convinced that HHH must report on the >>>>>>>>>> behavior of the >>>>>>>>>> computation that itself is contained within and not the >>>>>>>>>> behavior that >>>>>>>>>> its finite string input specifies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The construction is not recursive if the description does not >>>>>>>>> describe >>>>>>>>> the surrounding computation. And that behaviour cannot depend >>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>> decider, as they should all give the same answer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is far too vague. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HHH according to the semantics >>>>>>>> of the x86 programming language specifies a single exact >>>>>>>> sequence of state changes. None of these state changes >>>>>>>> ends up at the x86 machine language address of the "ret" >>>>>>>> instruction of DDD. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which would be meaningful if HHH actual did a correct emulation >>>>>>> of the >>>>>> >>>>>> HHH does emulate the exact sequence that the machine code >>>>>> of DDD specifies. This has been conclusively proven by >>>>>> the execution traces that the two instances of HHH provide. >>>>> >>>>> Nope, because it didn't emulate the call instruction properly. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is proved that it does emulate the call instruction >>>> properly by the correct execution trace of the second >>>> DDD derived by the second HHH. >>> >>> Nope, just proves you don't know what you are talking about. >>> >> >> Because your rebuttals have always been pure bluster > > No, YOUR rebuttal have been pure bluster that have avoided answering my > challenges, thus effectively ADMITTING that you arte just a liar. > >> you have only used double-talk and misdirection to dodge >> pointing out any mistake in the following: > > How about the trace that HHH generates shouldn't start with the code of > main, since that isn't what HHH starts simulating, thus your claims > about the trace generate by HHH can not be supported by something elses > trace. > That is a very ignorant thing to say. > Second, the CORRECT emulation of a "call" instruciton should show the > instruction of the routine called. > The extra 200 pages prove to be too confusing. The fact that after DDD calls HHH we do get the correct execution trace that would be derived from this call proves that the second HHH was called. I will highlight all of the code so that you can see the each instruction both HHH are shown and both DDD are shown. I will use four different colors. It really have already been 100% totally proven in that after DDD calls HHH we to get the correct execution trace of DDD emulated by this second HHH > Thus, a "Call 000015d2" *MUST* be followed by the instruction AT > 000015d2, and not "Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation" > > Since you have just been repeating this smae ERROR over and over, you > are just proving that you just don't care about the truth, but are just > repeating your same LIES over and over and over, securing your place in > Gehenna. > >>>> _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] >> >> _main() >> [00002192] 55 push ebp >> [00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp >> [00002195] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >> [0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >> [000021a2] 50 push eax >> [000021a3] 6843070000 push 00000743 >> [000021a8] e8b5e5ffff call 00000762 >> [000021ad] 83c408 add esp,+08 >> [000021b0] 33c0 xor eax,eax >> [000021b2] 5d pop ebp >> [000021b3] c3 ret >> Size in bytes:(0034) [000021b3] >> >> machine stack stack machine assembly >> address address data code language >> ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >> [00002192][00103820][00000000] 55 push ebp >> [00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp >> [00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >> [0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >> New slave_stack at:1038c4 >> >> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc >> [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >> [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >> [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >> [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >> New slave_stack at:14e2ec This execution trace proves that the second HHH did emulate the second DDD correctly: >> [00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >> [00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >> [00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >> [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped >> >> [0000219f][00103820][00000000] 83c404 add esp,+04 >> [000021a2][0010381c][00000000] 50 push eax >> [000021a3][00103818][00000743] 6843070000 push 00000743 >> [000021a8][00103818][00000743] e8b5e5ffff call 00000762 >> Input_Halts = 0 >> [000021ad][00103820][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08 >> [000021b0][00103820][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax >> [000021b2][00103824][00000018] 5d pop ebp >> [000021b3][00103828][00000000] c3 ret >> Number of Instructions Executed(10069) == 150 Pages >> >> *I had no idea that Mike was doing this same thing* >> >> The former editor in chief of CASM did acknowledge >> this to me. He said that was why he couldn't understand >> what I was saying after many email exchanges. >> > > My guess is he couldn't believe someone could be so stupid. Not at all he sponsored me on https://arxiv.org/ ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========