Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.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: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 11:21:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <vaniq2$3hnvu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vajdta$2qe9s$1@dont-email.me> <vak3a0$2teq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vakhnf$302rl$2@dont-email.me> <vampgq$3dl83$3@dont-email.me>
 <van46p$3f6c0$6@dont-email.me> <van671$3fgd3$4@dont-email.me>
 <van6um$3foem$4@dont-email.me> <vandsl$3grf3$3@dont-email.me>
 <vaneq4$3h3es$1@dont-email.me> <vani7u$3hh2l$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 18:21:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fac62f6084ae4030e082c32c7cff718b";
	logging-data="3727358"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4Bicg/KUe0UvyDjCiS3+b"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aCcES3HtHzJT40rThRZuLj6Qbew=
In-Reply-To: <vani7u$3hh2l$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6511

On 8/28/2024 11:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 28.aug.2024 om 17:13 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/28/2024 9:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:59 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 8/28/2024 7:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 28.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 8/28/2024 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 27.aug.2024 om 14:44 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 8/27/2024 3:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 27.aug.2024 om 04:33 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> This is intended to be a stand-alone post that does not
>>>>>>>>>> reference anything else mentioned in any other posts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we assume that:
>>>>>>>>>> (a) HHH is an x86 emulator that is in the same memory space as 
>>>>>>>>>> DDD.
>>>>>>>>>> (b) HHH emulates DDD according to the semantics of the x86 
>>>>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> then we can see that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly get past
>>>>>>>>>> its own machine address 0000217a.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, we see. In fact DDD is not needed at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the 
>>>>>>>> informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one 
>>>>>>>> actually under discussion...
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently you do not even understand the English that is used to 
>>>>>>> describe the straw man fallacy.
>>>>>>> Or are trying to distract the attention from the fact that DDD is 
>>>>>>> not needed is a simple truism, a tautology in your terms?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When 100% of the whole point is for HHH to correctly determine
>>>>>> whether or not DDD would stop running if not aborted
>>>>>> *IT IS RIDICULOUSLY STUPID TO SAY THAT DDD IS NOT NEEDED*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acting ridiculously stupid when on is not stupid at all
>>>>>> cannot be reasonably construed as anything besides a sadistic
>>>>>> head game.
>>>>>>
>>>>> When without DDD it is clear as crystal that HHH cannot possibly 
>>>>> simulate itself correctly:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Damned Liar !!!
>>>
>>> I will ignore this, because I know how difficult it is for you to 
>>> accept the truth.
>>>
>>>> I have told you too many times that correct simulation
>>>> is simply obeying the semantics of the 86 language for
>>>> whatever the x86 input finite string specifies.
>>>
>>> You may repeat it many more times, but HHH violated the semantics of 
>>> the x86 language by skipping the last few instructions of a halting 
>>> program. This finite string, when given for direct execution, shows a 
>>> halting behaviour. This is the proof what the semantics of the x86 
>>> language means for this finite string: a halting program.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the x86 string tells the computer to catch on fire and
>>>> the computer catches on fire then this proves that the
>>>> emulation was correct.
>>>
>>> And when the x86 string tells the computer that there is a halting 
>>> program and the simulator decides that there is a non-halting 
>>> program, this proves that the simulation is incorrect.
>>> Clear as crystal: the semantics of the x86 string is proved by its 
>>> direct execution.
>>> This is shown in the example below, where the direct execution of HHH 
>>> halts, but HHH decides that it does not halt.
>>>
>>
>> By this same reasoning that fact that you are no longer hungry
>> AFTER you have eaten proves that you never needed to eat.
> 
> No, again, you do not understand what It said.
> 
>>
>> The behavior of DDD before HHH aborts its simulation
>> (before it has eaten) it not the same behavior after
>> DDD has been aborted (after it has eaten).
>>
> 
> If hungry stands for fear for infinite recursion 

hungry stands for will not stop running unless aborted
just like
will remain hungry until eating is always true whenever hungry

> and eating stands for 
> aborting, then both the simulating HHH and the simulated HHH are hungry 
> and both are coded to eat. But the simulating HHH kills the simulated 
> HHH before the simulated HHH could eat, which does not prove that it 
> would not have eaten if not killed.
> There was no need to kill the simulated HHH, because it also knows how 
> to eat.
> 
> You seem to think that if the simulated HHH was not killed, it would 
> have eaten. But it knows how to eat, because that is how it is coded.


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