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 --- TYPO
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 07:19:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <vft4om$44tc$2@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>
 <vfqsui$1jg6i$2@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 11:19:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="136108"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vfqsui$1jg6i$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4794
Lines: 75

On 10/29/24 10:54 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 KNOW 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.
> 
> I read, reread again and again to make sure that my understanding
> is correct. You seems to glance at a few words before spouting off a 
> canned rebuttal that does not even apply to my words.
> 


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.

IF you consider what is written, why don't you "replies" answer the 
problems, rather than ignore them?

That just shows that you have nothing to back your claims, claims that 
you are making that require proof, not just bluster, since you are the 
one advocating the change in the system.