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 22:28:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 185
Message-ID: <vrvs8b$p4vd$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$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>
 <vru6in$38ob9$3@dont-email.me>
 <a81b9021e9b676c568d12f8e9fa9d27a0e7f4c07@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 04:28:12 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="352afb91538e0f1c4396f4d36cbd0f9a";
	logging-data="824301"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9NLkNwWzWiSLJxcy940kL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:j2HdXfpiW+KiE167LBbOZZUqkwY=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250325-18, 3/25/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <a81b9021e9b676c568d12f8e9fa9d27a0e7f4c07@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 10128

On 3/25/2025 7:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/25/25 8:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========