Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@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 12:58:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 110
Message-ID: <vpfnkr$jena$2@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> <vpe1s3$7gnd$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpfm3h$j7qb$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:58:52 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a3d0437002d06bb71b23761906f180bc";
	logging-data="637674"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/s0d472xhrCeOwYWZj1FA9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/wrd0zuTkUSoFmUtZHCz049cqTQ=
In-Reply-To: <vpfm3h$j7qb$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6178

On 2/23/2025 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2025 8:41 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 2/22/2025 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> _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 emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) this call cannot
>>> possibly return to the emulator, conclusively proving
>>> that
>>>
>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate
>>> normally by reaching its own "return" instruction.
>>>
>>> Assuming that it does return is simply stupid.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Similarly, when no_numbers_greater_than_10 emulated by F calls F(0) 
>> this call cannot possibly return to the emulator, conclusively proving 
>> that
> 
> Not true. The stack eventually unwinds after ten emulations.
> 

0000000000400534 <no_numbers_greater_than_10>:
   400534:    55                       push   %rbp
   400535:    48 89 e5                 mov    %rsp,%rbp
   400538:    b8 34 05 40 00           mov    $0x400534,%eax
   40053d:    48 89 c7                 mov    %rax,%rdi
   400540:    e8 a8 ff ff ff           callq  4004ed <F>
   400545:    5d                       pop    %rbp
   400546:    c3                       retq

Try and show how the above machine code can reach its own address 400545 
when no_numbers_greater_than_10 is correctly simulated by F


>>
>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 correctly emulated by F cannot possibly 
>> terminate normally by reaching its own "return" instruction
>>
>> Therefore you believe that there is no natural number greater than 10.
>>
>> Assuming that is does return is simply stupid.
>>
> 
>