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: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO
 Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 10:43:43 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <vpk3ci$1sif6$1@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <c267c2607cac84a040ecd629ef62cb11561f64e4@i2pn2.org>
 <vpgpfe$p9vl$2@dont-email.me>
 <887b6708f135c51df90f7371419797193b127f97@i2pn2.org>
 <vpj1hg$1fvqe$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 10:43:47 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="92d2aaced43ec798e861d918300ef76c";
	logging-data="1984998"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mT8XjDjCab6H9JFnj2A+t"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i90Pm50a5tB4ZArueVEzTTpDG94=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vpj1hg$1fvqe$9@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6800

Op 25.feb.2025 om 01:06 schreef olcott:
> On 2/24/2025 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 2/23/25 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/25 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.
>>>>
>>>> Just like a CORRECT emulation of DD would if the HHH doing the 
>>>> emulation didn't abort (but doing it by the hypothetical of NOT 
>>>> changing the HHH that DD calls, since that must be the original HHH).
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is you have lied to yourself about what is a "correct 
>>>> emulation" 
>>>
>>> In other words you "believe" that the call from DD to HHH(DD)
>>> returns when the above DD is emulated by HHH.
>>
>> What happens in an incorrect emulation doesn't matter,
> 
> One to infinity steps of the above DD emulated by HHH never
> terminates normally. 
Which proves that simulation is not the way to go for a halting decider, 
because it always fails to reach the normal termination of the halting 
program when simulating itself.