Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vqk4ea$o4oh$3@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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 correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:18:02 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <vqk4ea$o4oh$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq8mam$29b9l$5@dont-email.me>
 <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
 <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
 <vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqh07g$26ac$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhio1$5r7r$1@dont-email.me> <vqhm1s$6fo8$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqih45$bcso$1@dont-email.me> <vqii32$bcd0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqijht$bcso$3@dont-email.me>
 <ea39844506682e56d2f05babaa006b3a29c9861d@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 14:18:03 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9489a26c682238c9921fc6cb3f1d3d5b";
	logging-data="791313"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Uy7Oes0/Wx7vMw3HnFgDy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9Bjy2NbJxo8hihQvFEKCp2VFEKc=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250309-2, 3/9/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <ea39844506682e56d2f05babaa006b3a29c9861d@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 5221

On 3/9/2025 4:51 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 08 Mar 2025 17:23:41 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 3/8/2025 4:58 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2025 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:00 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a simulating
>>>>>> termination analyzer specifying infinite recursion or recursive
>>>>>> emulation cannot possibly reach their own final state and terminate
>>>>>> normally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a termination
>>>>> analyzer, simulating or otherwise, are specified by the specification
>>>>> that is the halting function:
>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
>>>>> And HHH(DD)==0 fails to meet the above specification
>>>>
>>>> *THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY THUS IMPOSSIBLY FALSE* Replacing the
>>>> code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running
>>>> HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate
>>>> normally because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
> 
> But HHH is not an unconditional simulator. It is supposed to break the
> cycle.
> 
>>> It must if it is to be classified as a halt decider or termination
>>> analyzer as per the definition.
>>
>> In other words you believe that HHH should just ignore the fact that DD
>> makes a call that prevents DD from ever reaching its own final state?
> 
> On the contrary, the call to HHH is guaranteed to return.
> 
>> Neither HHH nor DD have any idea that DD calls its own emulator in
>> recursive emulation.
>> None-the-less both HHH and anyone with sufficient technical competence
>> can see that DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>> final state.
> Not reaching *the* final state (which undoubtedly exists) cannot be
> called a correct simulation.
> 

_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 we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then*

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.

I am not going to address any other point until this
point is fully understood because the other points
cannot be understood until this one is understood.


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