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: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 17:57:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <vs20o1$2ot1m$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <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$3@dont-email.me>
 <a81b9021e9b676c568d12f8e9fa9d27a0e7f4c07@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvs8b$p4vd$1@dont-email.me>
 <b4513778f4d273817c0b3f5bf20955e6e23aab0f@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 23:57:06 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="61544cd49926c0716809366eec9fc285";
	logging-data="2913334"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18IJhIguj/7kVo0hZa9rPrp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7raROhBJKKMmSfm9FvX/EcD/mZg=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250326-16, 3/26/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <b4513778f4d273817c0b3f5bf20955e6e23aab0f@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 10708

On 3/26/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/25/25 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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]
>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========