Path: ...!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: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 13:19:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <vaqe3n$28ni$4@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>
 <vaqbbq$28ni$1@dont-email.me> <vaqcd2$22im$3@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 20:19:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e678f999b18028d25fa9559cad82e90c";
	logging-data="74482"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Nhu4NpALI5mZcV555Gjsy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N5ecJyzusMtACD449lEucO+3E5Y=
In-Reply-To: <vaqcd2$22im$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5178

On 8/29/2024 12:50 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 29.aug.2024 om 19:32 schreef olcott:
>> 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, 
> 
> Exactly. Do you finally understand that HHH cannot possibly simulate 
> itself up to the end?

*That seems to be a stupid (ignoramus) thing to say*

DDD forces emulated HHH to remain stuck in recursive
simulation forcing the emulated HHH to never reach
its own final halt state.

Do you have at least a BS degree in CS? Richard does not.

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