Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vrrpcl$11a56$4@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:14:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <vrrpcl$11a56$4@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>
 <vrpfua$2qbhf$2@dont-email.me>
 <211f9a2a284cb2deaa666f424c1ef826fe855e80@i2pn2.org>
 <vrq330$3dq3n$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7268e8ef47579cacb49b0533d51549a77eb0b96@i2pn2.org>
 <vrqb6f$3k9kh$2@dont-email.me>
 <3f250e699762cfe6fccc844f10eb04f32d470b6a@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 15:14:45 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2287d57c8a85f7b4edf97e8b0d992052";
	logging-data="1091750"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sB8tHi8jVYPS2Lu9vIhGC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:r7TUi8uO1j9DmcRyk5xkPg7qCe8=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250324-2, 3/24/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <3f250e699762cfe6fccc844f10eb04f32d470b6a@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8454

On 3/24/2025 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/23/25 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/23/2025 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/23/25 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/23/2025 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/23/25 1:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, because DEFINTIONALLY, to correctly emulate it, you need ALL 
>>>>> of it (at least all seen by the emulator) and thus you can't change 
>>>>> the parts seen and still be talking about the same input.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your claim just shows you are a patholgical liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can not "correctly emulate" the code of just the function, you 
>>>>> need the rest of the code, which mean you can't do the variations 
>>>>> you talk about.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> x86utm operates on a compiled object file that
>>>> is stored in a single location of global memory.
>>>
>>> Right, and thus you must consider *ALL* of that memory as the input, 
>>> so if you change it, it is a different input.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't yet noticed that all posts with this title
>> [III correctly emulated by EEE] are talking about a pure
>> emulator that emulates a finite number of instructions of III.
>>
>>
> 
> Which is just a strawman, and a contradiction, as the definition of 
> "correct emulation" (to be able to use it in the halting problem as a 
> surrogate for the programs behavior) must be complete.
> 

_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]

You continue to look increasingly foolish when you
try to keep getting away with denying that III
calls EEE(III) in recursive emulation.

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