Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.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: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 11:46:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 186
Message-ID: <vavhd3$12q8o$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$5@dont-email.me>
 <e10aee5b3ede543da42ba76ac4d7f0a0fe762695@i2pn2.org>
 <vasmn8$hmpd$1@dont-email.me> <vaumg9$ut9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav0r9$10jsm$1@dont-email.me> <vavb4a$11uqn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vavca1$1283f$1@dont-email.me> <vave2b$11uqn$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 18:46:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="704a0de50af0d27d19f59cdc9b0cd400";
	logging-data="1141016"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19gwCFPxoLbAUl8iA3aa9G6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JLEi1JLIubbP14VAWLD3RWpsP0E=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vave2b$11uqn$7@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9988

On 8/31/2024 10:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 31.aug.2024 om 17:19 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/31/2024 9:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 31.aug.2024 om 14:03 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 8/31/2024 4:07 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 30.aug.2024 om 16:58 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 8/30/2024 9:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Thu, 29 Aug 2024 09:07:39 -0500 schrieb 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH correctly predicts what the behavior of DDD would be if this 
>>>>>>>> HHH
>>>>>>>> never aborted its emulation of DDD.
>>>>>>> Problem is, DDD is then not calling itself, but the non-input of a
>>>>>>> not-aborting HHH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *This is before any aborting occurs*
>>>>>> *This is before any aborting occurs*
>>>>>> *This is before any aborting occurs*
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is your problem. The code of the program and its meaning 
>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language, does not suddenly 
>>>>> change when the aborting occurs.
>>>>
>>>> You cannot possibly say one damn thing about the behavior of DDD
>>>> until you first understand that a world class x86 emulator that
>>>> HHH calls does enable HHH to correctly emulate itself emulating
>>>> DDD and the following execution trace proves this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And when this unmodified world class x86 simulator was given olcott's 
>>> DDD based on the aborting HHH as input, it showed that this has 
>>> halting behaviour.
>>> THIS IS A VERIFIED FACT! Even olcott has verified it.
>>> This correct simulation by the unmodified world class simulator tells 
>>> us that the program has a halting behaviour.
>>> Your *modification* of the simulator stops the simulation before it 
>>> can see the halting behaviour and decides that the input is non-halting.
>>> We know which one is correct: the unmodified world class simulator, 
>>> not the *modified* one, which aborts one cycle too soon..
>>>
>>> SO, it it not honest to suggest that we do not understand what the 
>>> world class simulator predicts.
>>>
>>>> SE CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE ANY HONEST DIALOGUE WHEN MY REVIEWERS
>>>> INSIST ON LYING ABOUT VERIFIED FACTS.
>>>
>>> No evidence given. No reference to a single lie.
>>> Olcott seems just a bit short of memory.
>>> It is unclear why olcott hides these verified fact, which he knows 
>>> are true.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> _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      ; Begin main()
>>>> [00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>> [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
>>>> [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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Still dreaming of the HHH that does an infinite recursion? 
>>
>> Before we can proceed to the next step you must first agree
>> that the second emulation of DDD by the emulated HHH is proven
>> to be correct on the basis that it does emulate the first four
>> instructions of DDD.
>>
> 
> I agree that the simulation makes a good start, but it fails to complete 
> the simulation up to the end, making the simulation as a whole incorrect.
> We cannot proceed before you understand this.

YET AGAIN YOU PROVE THAT YOU ARE BRAIN DEAD.

I CALL YOU BRAIN DEAD BECAUSE YOU REPEATEDLY
IGNORE MY CORRECTIONS TO YOUR COUNTER-FACTUAL
FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.

The correctness of an emulation is not required to meet
your misconceptions, it is only required to obey the
semantics that the x86 code of DDD specifies.

_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)
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========