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: III correctly emulated by EEE ---
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:21:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <vrpfua$2qbhf$2@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>
 <vro0hk$1c9ia$1@dont-email.me>
 <9adf9b9c30250aaa2d3142509036c892db2b7096@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 18:21:15 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f92c4786d2cda46e6b9083b2e30acd51";
	logging-data="2960943"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19l0qbJAiLWHXs6qO7TrH8U"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:owcGIHVUfXf8PtMUUEkiOuLXHFU=
In-Reply-To: <9adf9b9c30250aaa2d3142509036c892db2b7096@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250323-4, 3/23/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 6475

On 3/23/2025 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/22/25 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> But it isn't a single finite string of x86 machince code, 

As a matter of verified fact it is a single finite
string of machine code at a fixed offset in the
Halt7.obj file.

> as to emulate 
> it we need to include the machine code of EEE, 

Which would also be a single finite string of machine code
at a fixed offset in the Halt7.obj file if it was not an
infinite set of hypothetical pure x86 emulators.

> which you just said froms 
> an infinite set of partial emulators.
> 
> That is your fundamental problem, that you need to redefine the meaning 
> of core terms 

A freaking set of pure x86 emulators EEE[0] to EEE[N] that
emulates 0 to N instructions of III IS NOT REDEFINING ANY
TERMS.

> to try to "establish" your facts, and thus you don't 
> establish them in the logic system you claim to be talking about (the 
> one that Turing made his claim in)
> 
> Sorry, your statements are just self-contradictory, and you are proven 
> to be ignoran.


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