Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- TYPO
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:08:06 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <vg2cqm$37cq6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$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> <vft4om$44tc$2@i2pn2.org> <vft944$25aio$6@dont-email.me> <11408789ed30027f4bc9a743f353dfa9b4712109@i2pn2.org> <QU2dnTAfup30Rr_6nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <vfvnml$2ll12$1@dont-email.me> <vfvujg$2mcse$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 12:08:06 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f3d815f22c211ba81933ff9202fa284b";
	logging-data="3388230"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/QGzufhU2Ec/3hP0zwXhQ7"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kvd4O12IClQHwF1ctDx08Tj960k=
Bytes: 6310

On 2024-10-31 12:53:04 +0000, olcott said:

> On 10/31/2024 5:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-31 01:20:40 +0000, Mike Terry said:
>> 
>>> On 30/10/2024 23:35, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/30/24 8:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/30/2024 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It does not know its own code. It merely knows that the
>>>>> machine address that it is looking at belongs to the
>>>>> operating system. I simply don't have the fifty labor
>>>>> years that AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs,
>>>>> could spend on handling conditional branches.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The stupid aspect on your part is that even knowing
>>>>> that its own code halts THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
>>>>> DDD REACHING TS OWN RETURN INSTRUCTION.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No, HHH is NOT part of the "Operating System" so your claims are just a lie,
>>> 
>>> PO definitely has a deep-rooted problem with his thinking here.
>> 
>> What PO does does not look like any thingking but more like what one
>> could expect from ChatgPPT or a similar AI.
> 
> I don't have the 50 years it would take for me to replicate the work of
> AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs.

Doesn't matter. Even if you had you could not use it to prove your false
claim that there be some defect in some proof.

> In other case what I am doing is called
> isolating the independent variable.

You may call it that way. It does not look like that.

> The program under test is DDD.
> HHH is NOT the program under test it is the tester.

So far is good. But the halting problem demands that every Turng machine
can be put to the test.

-- 
Mikko