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: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: III correctly emulated by EEE ---
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 22:52:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <vro0hk$1c9ia$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrgme1$2tr56$1@dont-email.me>
 <vri5mn$6nv4$1@dont-email.me>
 <8354fe5751e03a767452a3999818d5c6da714a6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrigh6$f35v$1@dont-email.me> <vrj6d3$14iuu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjog0$1ilbe$6@dont-email.me>
 <db8aa67218b2a0990cd1df38aca29dbd3930e145@i2pn2.org>
 <vrkumg$2l2ci$2@dont-email.me>
 <ba957e964c1090cbb801b1688b951ac095281737@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmepa$2r2l$1@dont-email.me>
 <d8ee6d675850304b99af1b587437ba0ac64dbb85@i2pn2.org>
 <vrms64$cvat$2@dont-email.me>
 <76e394abe71be9cdc7f1948e73352c4f76ae409e@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmua7$cvat$8@dont-email.me>
 <dc633a07cd15e2c80ed98083cc5f9d218edcc9da@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 04:52:21 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f903b2c6eb5ca9601fbf79d3d547fe69";
	logging-data="1451594"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TPCqXlSVrTrKhZVlldvwS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xuqH2xL1CL0wN1TKq217LRsNDjU=
In-Reply-To: <dc633a07cd15e2c80ed98083cc5f9d218edcc9da@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250322-4, 3/22/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 5157

On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/22/25 2:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/22/2025 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/22/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2025 11:37 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:43:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> There is no program DDD in the above code.
>>>>> There is also no Infinite_Recursion.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since no Turing machine M can ever compute the mapping from the 
>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>> of any directly executed TM2 referring to the behavior of the 
>>>>>> directly
>>>>>> executed DDD has always been incorrect. Halt Deciders always 
>>>>>> report on
>>>>>> the behavior that their input finite string specifies.
>>>>
>>>>> Please explain what behaviour the description of a TM "specifies",
>>>>> and which TM the input describes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bill sang a song" describes what Bill did.
>>>> A tape recording of Bill singing that same
>>>> song completely specifies what Bill did.
>>>
>>> And what a UTM does with this input completely specifies its behavior,
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> In every case that does not involve pathological self-reference the
>>>>>> behavior that the finite string specifies is coincidentally the same
>>>>>> behavior as the direct execution of the corresponding machine. The
>>>>>> actual measure, however, has always been the behavior that the finite
>>>>>> string input specifies.
>>>>> ...which is the direct execution. Not much of a coincidence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _III()
>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III
>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III)
>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>
>>>> When-so-ever any correct emulator EEE correctly emulates
>>>> a finite number of steps of an input III that calls this
>>>> same emulator to emulate itself the behavior of the direct
>>>> execution of III will not be the same as the behavior of
>>>> the emulated III.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Becuase a finite emulation that stop before the end is not a correct 
>>> emulation 
>>
>> In other words you keep dishonestly trying to get away with
>> disagreeing with the law of identity.
>>
>> When N steps are III are correctly emulated by EEE
>> then N steps are III are correctly emulated by EEE.
> 
> Which isn't the same as the CORRECT emulation that shows if the program 
> being emulated will halt/.
> 
>>
>> There exists no Natural Number N number of steps of III
>> correctly emulated by EEE where III reaches its
>> own "ret" instruction and terminates normally.
>>
> 
> Because

In other words you agree that the recursive emulation
of a single finite string of x86 machine code single
machine address [00002172] cannot possibly reach its
own machine address [00002183]when emulated by emulator
EEE according to the semantics of the x86 language.


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