Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 12:32:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <vaqbbq$28ni$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vajdta$2qe9s$1@dont-email.me> <vak3a0$2teq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vakhnf$302rl$2@dont-email.me> <vamk7l$3d7ki$1@dont-email.me>
 <van3v7$3f6c0$5@dont-email.me> <vap7b1$3sobs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapvbc$3vumk$5@dont-email.me> <vaqant$22im$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 19:32:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e678f999b18028d25fa9559cad82e90c";
	logging-data="74482"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+0bUwQTPOD71mLynk85DeG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2IHix3H1gx6PoK33haMlMZIs0RQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vaqant$22im$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4827

On 8/29/2024 12:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 29.aug.2024 om 16:07 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/29/2024 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-28 12:08:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-08-27 12:44:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> You should also point a link to the equivocation fallacy. You use it
>>>>> more often than straw man.
>>>>
>>>> Isomorphism is not equivocation
>>>
>>> The use of HHH for many purposes (a specific program, an unpsecified
>>> memeber of a set of programs, a hypothetical program) is.
>>>
>>> Your first posting looked like you were going to apply equivocation
>>> later in the discussion. Now, after several later messages, it seems
>>> that you want to apply the fallacy of "moving the goal posts" instead.
>>>
>>
>> void EEE()
>> {
>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> HHH correctly predicts what the behavior of EEE would
>> be if this HHH never aborted its emulation of EEE.
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> HHH correctly predicts what the behavior of DDD would
>> be if this HHH never aborted its emulation of DDD.
> Which is incorrect, because HHH is not allowed to change the input. The 
> simulating HHH may abort, but it may not ignore the fact that the input 
> (the simulated HHH) is coded to abort when it sees the 'special 
> condition'. Otherwise it would decide about a non-input, which is not 
> allowed.
> 

*I told you this too many times so you must be a liar*
No DDD ever reaches its "return" instruction no matter
what-the-Hell that HHH does, thus DDD CANNOT POSSIBLY HALT.

> In the same way as HHH is not allowed to change the code of EEE when it 
> aborts EEE. The simulating HHH may abort and predict the behaviour of 
> the *unchanged* input would be.
> 
> In other words: HHH should process its input as if it was not its own 
> code. In fact, that is what HHH1 does and that is correct.
> 


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