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: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 07:12:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 167
Message-ID: <vru6in$38ob9$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me>
 <8354fe5751e03a767452a3999818d5c6da714a6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrigh6$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>
 <vrrpcl$11a56$4@dont-email.me>
 <8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:12:08 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9741c665c88d9215381b06ce738934cb";
	logging-data="3432809"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19i05a6RBxlsmtWIP8fcwDy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LRFwD7sBq74TXp9R1iHVbeAruAw=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250324-4, 3/24/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 9266

On 3/24/2025 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/24/25 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> But I don't deny it, just point out that it is irrelevent, 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========