| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vcae5l$33ujk$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!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: Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof --- H emulating H emulating D Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2024 18:15:01 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 111 Message-ID: <vcae5l$33ujk$1@dont-email.me> References: <vc6qlc$275or$1@dont-email.me> <vc94bp$2q9hl$1@dont-email.me> <vc975i$2qm11$3@dont-email.me> <vc9c9j$2s39m$1@dont-email.me> <vc9kjv$2u9le$1@dont-email.me> <9276524b25318414fa2ad3eb24a0834d55038436@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 01:15:02 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2e8541e23cb4beabf59212eec01bab97"; logging-data="3275380"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19n+F75oMlnks2dAi1c/2rg" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:7nZ2JwF/SEpAHRoQZIynCXsTsLA= In-Reply-To: <9276524b25318414fa2ad3eb24a0834d55038436@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5788 On 9/16/2024 5:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 9/16/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/16/2024 8:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 16.sep.2024 om 14:09 schreef olcott: >>>> On 9/16/2024 6:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 15.sep.2024 om 16:23 schreef olcott: >>>>>> >>>>>> Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof >>>>>> D(D) correctly reports its own halt status >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>> publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We can see that the first seven instructions of D emulated by H >>>>>> precisely match the first seven instructions of the x86 source- >>>>>> code of D. This conclusively proves that these instructions were >>>>>> emulated correctly. >>>>> >>>>> Yes H makes a good start, but fails to complete the simulation, >>>>> because of a bug in the code to recognise an infinite 'recursion'. >>>>> >>>> Then if you are not a damned liar you can see this >>>> next part that you dishonestly erased. >>>> >>>> D() >>>> [0000218e] 55 push ebp ; begin D >>>> [0000218f] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>> [00002191] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>> [00002194] 50 push eax ; push param >>>> [00002195] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>> [00002198] 51 push ecx ; push param >>>> [00002199] e8a0f2ffff call 0000143e ; call H >>>> >>>> After D calls H(D, D) we can see that H correctly emulates itself >>>> emulating D because again we see that the first seven instructions >>>> of D emulated by the emulated H precisely match the first seven >>>> instructions of the x86 source-code of D. This conclusively proves >>>> that these instructions were emulated correctly. >>>> >>> Yes, nobody denies that H made a good start, but it failed with the >>> seventh instruction, where it did not correctly simulate the call >>> instruction, which should be followed by the simulation of >>> instructions within H. >> >> Examining emulations of emulations is very confusing >> in the 260 page execution trace. Here it is: >> >> first line of H [0000143e] >> page 38 executed H >> page 48 emulated H >> page 249 emulated emulated H >> >> first line of D [0000218e] >> page 38 executed D >> page 41 emulated D >> page 132 emulated emulated D >> >> We can tell that a line is emulated when it is >> preceded by: "call 000007be" call _DebugStep() >> >> https://www.liarparadox.org/D(D)_Sipser_Full.pdf >> >> page 38 executed D invokes executed H >> [000021be][00103868][00000000] 55 push ebp >> [000021bf][00103868][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp >> [000021c1][00103864][0000218e] 688e210000 push 0000218e >> [000021c6][00103860][000021cb] e8c3ffffff call 0000218e >> [0000218e][0010385c][00103868] 55 push ebp >> [0000218f][0010385c][00103868] 8bec mov ebp,esp >> [00002191][0010385c][00103868] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >> [00002194][00103858][0000218e] 50 push eax >> [00002195][00103858][0000218e] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >> [00002198][00103854][0000218e] 51 push ecx >> [00002199][00103850][0000219e] e8a0f2ffff call 0000143e >> >> page 40-41 executed H is calling the emulator to emulate D >> [00001208][001037dc][00103894] e8b1f5ffff call 000007be >> [0000218e][00113900][00113904] 55 push ebp >> >> page 48 executed H is calling the emulator to emulate H >> [00001208][001037dc][00103894] e8b1f5ffff call 000007be >> [00002199][001138f4][0000219e] e8a0f2ffff call 0000143e >> >> page 132 emulated H is calling the emulator to emulate D >> [00001208][001037dc][00103894] e8b1f5ffff call 000007be >> [00001208][00113880][0014e2bc] e8b1f5ffff call 000007be >> [0000218e][0015e328][0015e32c] 55 push ebp >> >> page 249 emulated H is calling the emulator to emulate H >> [00001208][001037dc][00103894] e8b1f5ffff call 000007be >> [00001208][00113880][0014e2bc] e8b1f5ffff call 000007be >> [00002199][0015e31c][0000219e] e8a0f2ffff call 0000143e >> > > So? > > That just shows you have worked out a way to LIE about what happens. > > The results of a emulated call to debug step are NOT correctly part of > the emulation of D. DebugStep() calls the libx86emu library you freaking doofus. When D calls H(D,D) H mus emulate itself emulating D you freaking doofus. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer