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: DDD correctly emulated by EEE --- Correct Emulation Defined ---
 CUT-AND-PASTE FAILED
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:05:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <vrrora$11a56$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrmirg$5bpl$1@dont-email.me>
 <ca0a3e4701bc62fa38f1138064feff7628ff5b48@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmtrn$cvat$7@dont-email.me>
 <678373dd34320b3c8250f1e75c849a16316d8ae8@i2pn2.org>
 <vro0rb$1c9ia$2@dont-email.me>
 <bddeb5144881ad5d343c0dcde12715352028487a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrpguc$2qbhf$3@dont-email.me>
 <620b2d2b4fcea2b169555e3ba9ba426f00c908ef@i2pn2.org>
 <vrq3jk$3dq3n$2@dont-email.me>
 <9a1b74a1390c035612fcaff008b83d2854484bf6@i2pn2.org>
 <vrqcer$3k9kh$4@dont-email.me>
 <479c16b0cb3c9ea89643f01c0180977d29ae14bc@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 15:05:31 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2287d57c8a85f7b4edf97e8b0d992052";
	logging-data="1091750"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1997m5aLLUgZaM7BH/WftSq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5tY83ogBKPzMklTQiGBbCJDzgVk=
In-Reply-To: <479c16b0cb3c9ea89643f01c0180977d29ae14bc@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250324-2, 3/24/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8393

On 3/24/2025 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/23/25 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/23/2025 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/23/25 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/23/2025 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/23/25 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/23/2025 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/22/25 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/25 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/25 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> _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 EEE(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 finite integer N instructions of the above x86
>>>>>>>>>>>> machine language DD are emulated by each x86 emulator
>>>>>>>>>>>> EEE[N] at machine address [000015c3] according to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language no DD ever reaches its own
>>>>>>>>>>>> "ret" instruction at machine address [00002155] and
>>>>>>>>>>>> terminates normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your can't emulate the above code for N > 4, as you get into 
>>>>>>>>>>> undefine memory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have already addressed this objection dozens of times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No you haven't. You have given several different LIES about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I have pointed out, if you don't include Halt7.c as part of 
>>>>>>>>> the definition, then you can't do it as you are looking at 
>>>>>>>>> undefined memory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your lack of technical competence is showing.
>>>>>>>> (1) We are talking about a hypothetical infinite
>>>>>>>> set of pure x86 emulators that have no decider code.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2) The memory space of x86 machine code is not
>>>>>>>> in the C source file, it is in the object file.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then your "input" isn't the C source files, but the memory, and 
>>>>>>> ALL of it, and thus in your (1), each member of the set got a 
>>>>>>> different input (as reference memory changed) and none of those 
>>>>>>> apply to your case with HHH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just continue to prove that you don't understand the meaning 
>>>>>>> of the terms you are using, or you are intentionally hiding your 
>>>>>>> fradulant change of meaning of those terms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Command line arguments:
>>>>>> x86utm Halt7.obj > Halt7out.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of the x86 functions remain at their same fixed
>>>>>> offset from the beginning of Halt7.obj
>>>>>
>>>>> So?
>>>>>
>>>>> You still need to make the decision, is Halt7.c / Halt7.obj part of 
>>>>> the INPUT to the decider, and thus either you can't change the code 
>>>>> in it, or you need to consider each version a different input, or
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _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]
>>>>
>>>> In other words an infinite set of pure x86 emulators
>>>> with each one stored at machine address 000015d2
>>>> that can be called from the above fixed finite string
>>>> of machine code IS UTTERLY BEYOND ANYTHING THAT YOU
>>>> CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE.
>>>>
>>>> I don't buy it. You are  neither that stupid nor
>>>> that ignorant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can't have two different programs in one memory location at the 
>>> same time.
>>>
>>
>> CUT-AND-PASTE FAILED
>>
>> I will dumb it down for you.
>> Try to come up with one x86 emulator EEE at machine
>> address 000015d2 that emulates III according to the
>> semantics of the x86 language and this emulated III
>> reaches its own machine address 00002183.
>>
> 
> No, STRAWMAN ERROR. You are just having a logic failure.
> 
> No, you are showing yourself to be dumb.
> 
> You can't redefine what "Correct Emulation" means without loosing the 
> ability to use it to answer the problem, as we can only look as 
> emulations instead of the original machine BECAUSE the are defined to be 
> the same.
> 
> The big problem with your example is that the fact that there doesn't 
> exist an EEE that can correct emulate this input to it final state, is 
> that all this proves is that this sort of emulator can never "prove" 
> that this sort of input is halting.
> 

It only takes III calling EEE twice in sequence with
no conditional branch instructions between 00002172 and
0000217a to prove that III specifies not haling behavior.

> We also have the fact that none of the inputs you are looking at 
> actually match the inputs given to your deciders, because, as been 
> shown, the code at 000015d2 must be included in the input, or your 
> decider fails to be the "pure function" you agree it must be.
> 
> And if it is, it won't match the code of the decider, since EEE is not 
> the same program as HHH.
> 
> So, all you have done is proven that your logic is based on lies, and on 
> creating strawmen with those lies.
> 
> Your credibility is now in that lake of fire that you will be joining in 
> the not to distant future. Sorry, but that is the facts unless you make 
> a radical change in your behavior, and admit your error.
> 
> But then, it seems you are just too ignorant to be able to see your 
> error, because you brainwashed yourself into being ignorant out of a 
> fear of being brainwashed by the truth.


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