Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a
 new basis --- TYPO
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:34:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <vg3via$3fui0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$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>
 <vg2cqm$37cq6$1@dont-email.me> <vg2kfq$38m0h$1@dont-email.me>
 <ffd89b37bd90ad09952a020e8174a1264be117c1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2024 02:34:02 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f24840444c7ed29233b33314df4ac42c";
	logging-data="3668544"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX186bX0KBsPPjBMNX/5M0gC5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:56EVyWS8/liPC6EmtwMH3sb5KpQ=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241101-4, 11/1/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ffd89b37bd90ad09952a020e8174a1264be117c1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7459

On 11/1/2024 7:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/1/24 9:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/1/2024 6:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> There has never ever been the least trace of error
>> in this verified fact:
> 
> Sure there has been, but you have just proven that you are too stupid to 
> understand it.
> 

That you rejected the statement of fact prior to even seeing
it seems to prove that you are dishonest.

>>
>> 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.
>>



-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer