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 14:36:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <vqkqkk$sf7f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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> <vqb6f4$2lue4$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqb6qr$2mueq$3@dont-email.me>
 <27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org>
 <vqcvu3$34c3r$5@dont-email.me>
 <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org>
 <vqdlqp$371bi$6@dont-email.me> <vqeceq$3epcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2bp$3j68u$4@dont-email.me> <vqh19v$2mh0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhj3n$5r7r$3@dont-email.me> <vqhm4q$6fo8$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqhs03$6vdc$5@dont-email.me> <vqig6a$bcd0$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqihd5$bcso$2@dont-email.me> <vqii7c$bcd0$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqiju2$bcso$4@dont-email.me>
 <f667993f66e38ce7610b933bbbf13508dfee1e23@i2pn2.org>
 <vqj1m3$ef0h$3@dont-email.me>
 <81f99208ab5ac8261e19355d54de31bb0ba8cdc6@i2pn2.org>
 <vqk4t4$o4oh$4@dont-email.me>
 <af6a3bd08f89f22772743f9e0946d5cb663ddbc4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 20:36:52 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="871355eeae5211f3a720171f83a700ed";
	logging-data="933103"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jX4AvCXeAJ/DTjZmAbaMf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:J+FVKyacR4pcNnRq9gQ0WFsNIQw=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250309-4, 3/9/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <af6a3bd08f89f22772743f9e0946d5cb663ddbc4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7180

On 3/9/2025 2:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/9/25 9:25 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/9/2025 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/8/25 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/8/25 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:01 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:01 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The code proves otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A program does not prove. In particular, it does not prove 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> different program exists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The source code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually does. 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The source code contains a finite sequence of truth 
>>>>>>>>>>> preserving steps between axioms and a statement?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The source code 100% completely specifies every single detail
>>>>>>>>>> of exactly what it does on each specific input.
>>>>>>>>>> Saying that it does not do this is counter-factual.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words, the source code does not meet the definition of 
>>>>>>>>> a proof, so your claim is false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dumb Bunny:
>>>>>>>> *Proof[0] is anything that shows that X is necessarily true*
>>>>>>>> *and thus impossibly false*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The source-code in Halt7.c combined with the input to HHH
>>>>>>>> conclusively proves every detail of the behavior of HHH on
>>>>>>>> this input. Disagreeing this is either foolish or dishonest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A proof is a finite sequence of truth preserving steps between 
>>>>>>> the axioms of a system and a true statement that show the 
>>>>>>> statement is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proof[math] tries unsuccessfully to inherit from proof[0].
>>>>>> I am stipulating that I have always been referring to proof[0].
>>>>>
>>>>> And I am pointing out that it IS the same, it is just that you 
>>>>> don't understand that "Show" implies FINITE.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In that single aspect you are correct.
>>>> Show that X is definitely true and thus impossibly false
>>>> by any means what-so-ever is not proof[math].
>>>
>>> or proof[0], since you can not SHOW something "by any means" if those 
>>> means are not showable due to not being finite.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity by repeating your disproved claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you cannot understand the Halt7.c conclusively proves[0]
>>>>>> the actual behavior of HHH(DD) this is merely your lack of
>>>>>> understanding and nothing more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure I can understand what it does, as Halt7.c shows that the 
>>>>> behavior of the input is to HALT since that is what DD will do when 
>>>>> main calls it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU KNOW YOU WERE WRONG*
>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But The HHH You are talking about doesn't do a correct simulation, so 
>>> this statment is not applicable.
>>>
>>
>>
>> _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]
> 
> WHich is *NOT* a program, as it has an external reference.
> 
>>
>> *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.
> 
> Wrong, because emulaiting for "N Steps" is NOT correctly emulation.
> 

Correctly emulating N steps is emulating N steps correctly.

Everyone here that has sufficient technical competence can
see that for any N steps of DD correctly emulated by HHH
that DD cannot possibly reach its own final state and
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