Path: 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: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 09:10:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 193
Message-ID: <vqmrs2$1ckgi$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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$4@dont-email.me>
 <af6a3bd08f89f22772743f9e0946d5cb663ddbc4@i2pn2.org>
 <vqkqkk$sf7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <2c05662d218a25329eec1fb052e96758227d094c@i2pn2.org>
 <vql4uq$uv13$2@dont-email.me>
 <ce80c9dc3a24d0ab0257e871338b59945526b563@i2pn2.org>
 <vqll7i$11p4p$1@dont-email.me>
 <9e4fbf536ccba32198cd7e8f00605165347a10da@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:10:10 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b0b8b860f597ad74dffc25f0321f499";
	logging-data="1462802"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197a/EvFZcPdUQkVnk9PLEd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mqd6S6y6ntCst/B63sSYFLhRdi8=
In-Reply-To: <9e4fbf536ccba32198cd7e8f00605165347a10da@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250310-6, 3/10/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 3/10/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/9/25 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/9/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/9/25 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2025 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/9/25 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is only partially emulating it correctly, and only partially 
>>>>> correct is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So? As has been pointed out, since HHH can't do enough steps to get 
>>>>> to the actual answer, it never CORRECTLY emulated the input enough 
>>>>> to get the answer if it aborts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If HHH can see the same pattern that every competent
>>>> programmer sees then HHH does not need to emulate DD
>>>> more than twice to know that HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>> its own final state and terminate normally.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The pattern that HHH sees is IDENTICAL to the pattern that HHH1 saw, 
>>> up to the point it aborts.
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========