Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis ---
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 21:17:39 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <vfs1fj$2ci0$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <veoift$29dtl$2@dont-email.me> <veoq3j$2aqp2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vf716u$1607j$1@dont-email.me> <vf7ks8$1d1vt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vf8eu5$1h5mj$2@dont-email.me> <vfdk8g$2lgl1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfdrb8$2mcdg$1@dont-email.me> <vffk1i$33iat$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfgaev$36im7$5@dont-email.me> <vfi743$3kr1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfip3l$3ner2$2@dont-email.me>
 <1bc1ab08ec47bf818ddff1d4f63b542ceadd6985@i2pn2.org>
 <vfjokd$3su2f$1@dont-email.me> <vfk3jl$3kr0c$5@i2pn2.org>
 <vfk4lk$3ukdm$1@dont-email.me> <vfl8o9$3mnmt$5@i2pn2.org>
 <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org>
 <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org>
 <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpcko$1837o$3@dont-email.me> <vfpish$3u885$2@i2pn2.org>
 <vfpjk2$1976k$1@dont-email.me>
 <086fc32f14bcc004466d3128b0fe585b27377399@i2pn2.org>
 <vfqs6h$1jg83$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 01:17:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="78400"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vfqs6h$1jg83$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4280
Lines: 63

On 10/29/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/29/2024 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/28/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/28/24 9:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/28/2024 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is IMPOSSIBLE to emulate DDD per the x86 semantics without the 
>>>>>> code for HHH, so it needs to be part of the input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *You seemed to be a totally Jackass here*
>>>>> You are not that stupid
>>>>> You are not that ignorant
>>>>> and this is not your ADD
>>>>>
>>>>> _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]
>>>>>
>>>>> At machine address 0000217a HHH emulates itself emulating
>>>>> DDD without knowing that it is emulating itself.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then how did it convert the call HHH into an emulation of DDD again?
>>>>
>>>
>>> When HHH (unknowingly) emulates itself emulating DDD this
>>> emulated HHH is going to freaking emulate DDD.
>>>
>>> Did you think it was going to play poker?
>>>
>>
>> Which is what it would do, get stuck and fail to be a decider. It 
>> might figure out that it is emulating an emulating decider, at which 
>> point it knows that the decider might choose to abort its conditional 
>> emulation to return, so it needs to emulate further.
>>
>> Only by recognizing itself, does it have grounds to say that if I 
>> don't abort, it never will, and thus I am stuck, so I need to abort.
>>
> 
> Counter-factual. This algorithm has no ability to its own code.
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c // page 801
> 
> *That people fail to agree with this and also fail to*
> *correctly point out any error seems to indicate dishonestly*
> *or lack of technical competence*
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86
> language cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction
> whether or not any HHH ever aborts its emulation of DDD.
> 

No, it knows its own code because it rule for "No conditional branches" 
excludes that code.

And thus it is working with an invalid arguement.