Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO
 Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:47:44 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <vpfn00$j7qb$7@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <vp46l6$26r1n$1@dont-email.me> <vp5t55$2gt2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp6pmb$2opvi$1@dont-email.me> <vp8700$30tdq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp8att$1cec$1@news.muc.de> <vp8h5n$32ifn$1@dont-email.me>
 <39c74e68a47f768d432f5528493b6db9b946ea83@i2pn2.org>
 <vpcvc7$irt$6@dont-email.me>
 <65d495d5d1da61e1bff8426a80fb7d6b046a7f71@i2pn2.org>
 <vpdr2j$6bqs$2@dont-email.me>
 <e5f0fd13a74910fe5c86cf90c2b7227e0f1c53b8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:47:48 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5144976fea626f7db2c2a543d9b04706";
	logging-data="630603"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+V+yUEC2L01nQqCUIVGyfM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:COb+a1PnhXYs0A/ZDaQiHwU1DyY=
In-Reply-To: <e5f0fd13a74910fe5c86cf90c2b7227e0f1c53b8@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250223-4, 2/23/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 5509

On 2/23/2025 5:52 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 22 Feb 2025 18:45:06 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 2/22/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/22/25 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2025 5:05 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:25:27 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 4:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have given everyone here all of the complete source code for a
>>>>>>>>>> few years
>>>>>>>>> True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that
>>>>>>>>> particular code.
>>>>>>>> Every post that I have been talking about for two or more years
>>>>>>>> has referred to variations of that same code.
>>>>>>> Yes.  It would be a relief if you could move on to posting
>>>>>>> something new and fresh.
>>>>>> As soon as people fully address rather than endlessly dodge my key
>>>>>> points I will be done.
>>>>> Honestly, you're gonna die first, one way or the other.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's start with a root point.
>>>>>> All of the other points validate this root point.
>>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly determines*
>>>>>> *the non-halt status of DD*
>>>>> Since DD halts, that's dead in the water.
>>>> Despicably intentionally dishonest attempts at the straw-man deception
>>>> aside:
>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally by
>>>> reaching its own "return" instruction.
>>> Only because that statement is based on a false premise.
>>> Since HHH doesn't correctly simulate its input, your statement is just
>>> a fabrication of your imagination.
>>
>> *Correct simulation means emulates the machine code as specified* It
>> cannot mean imagining a different sequence than the one that the machine
>> code specifies. That most people here are clueless about x86 machine
>> code is far less than no rebuttal at all.
> It's not about the machine code. The machine code of HHH specifies a
> sequence where simulation is aborted, but you simulate the non-input
> of a non-aborting HHH. This is not the HHH that does the simulation.
> 
>> When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) this call cannot possibly return
>> to the emulator, conclusively proving that
> That's bad. A decider like HHH is supposed to return.
> 

When a decider itself is called in an infinite loop
then it cannot possibly terminate unless a version
of itself its emulating this instance of itself.

In this case the infinite loop instance MUST BE ABORTED.

_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]

When DD is correctly simulated by HHH according to the behavior
that the above machine code specifies then the call from DD
to HHH(DD) cannot possibly return making it impossible for DD
emulated by HHH to terminate normally.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer