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: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:13:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <vs6osm$39556$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrt3gv$264jb$4@dont-email.me>
 <448c82acff6b5fc1d2aa266be92df6f778ec2c6a@i2pn2.org>
 <vru5tp$38ob9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ac61f679d7ddb39b0ceaedd7f562899d36346535@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvccp$aq8m$3@dont-email.me>
 <e166831a8e02332d64ec151f61481e2629e6e53a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvsh4$p4vd$2@dont-email.me>
 <c93030bbd81fb313c76c256c6e54beb48b07dfdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vs1vuv$2ot1m$1@dont-email.me>
 <d2f86fad6c5823e3c098f30d331576c52263b398@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2fgn$354gv$5@dont-email.me>
 <61f821b5a18046ab36ddb6c52a003b574cf34de6@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2hnm$38lvq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9be1ff2af6bbf405565b27bc8211adf9f353e9f2@i2pn2.org>
 <vs44b6$qjc3$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ff8345ef2ddb51594c67cf7f5cbb81f696afbc5@i2pn2.org>
 <vs4per$1c1ja$5@dont-email.me>
 <8a8d4ac681ff887744c6a24e9c8f2777222da16f@i2pn2.org>
 <vs4st9$1c1ja$10@dont-email.me>
 <b7da0be84663018deae9e8d8b673b5d1e87b7de1@i2pn2.org>
 <vs50gb$1c1ja$14@dont-email.me>
 <6e702874c08a1f683fe9dd3afb88c66c37456d46@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:13:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="573eb7050e522f67e4fe879678fe5346";
	logging-data="3445926"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JV4EV637soCPCUx5PNQ/k"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6TsjBnWcVsg2v/B5HpZkrJPqufk=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250328-4, 3/28/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <6e702874c08a1f683fe9dd3afb88c66c37456d46@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 5982

On 3/28/2025 8:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/27/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/27/2025 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/27/25 9:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/25 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 4:56 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:10:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/25 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 10:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/25 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> staste even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an unbounded number of steps are emulated. Since HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, it isn't showing non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its final state in an
>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>> But DDD emulated by an actually correct emulator will,
>>>>>>>>>> If you were not intentionally persisting in a lie you would
>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge the dead obvious that DDD emulated by HHH 
>>>>>>>>>> according to the
>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly correctly reach its
>>>>>>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, HHH is not a correct simulator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say that it is not a correct simulator on the basis
>>>>>> of your ignorance of the x86 language that conclusively
>>>>>> proves that HHH does correctly simulate the first four
>>>>>> instructions of DDD and correctly simulates itself
>>>>>> simulating the first four instructions of DDD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't a correct simulator, 
>>>>
>>>> You know that you are lying about this or you would
>>>> show how DDD emulated by HHH would reach its final state
>>>> ACCORDING TO THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It can't be, because your HHH doesn't meet your requirement.
>>>
>>
>> You cannot show that because you know you are lying about that.
>>
> 
> Sure we can, make a main that directly calls HHH and then DDD, then call 
> HHH1(DDD)
> 
> That HHH will return 0, saying that DDD is non-halting, but the DDD wll 
> return, showing that DDD is halting.
> 
> Look at the trace that HHH generates, and that HHH1 generates, HHH's 
> will be a subset of the trace that HHH1 generates, showing that it is 
> NOT proof that this program is non-halting as that exact same initial 
> segment halts.
> 
> Your argument about changing HHH shows that it doesn't halt is just 
> invalid, as then you either changed the input, or demonstrated that you 
> input was a class error as it didn't contain the COMPLETE representation 
> of the code of DDD.
> 
> Sorry, This is what you have been told for years, but you refuse to look 
> at the truth, because you have been brainwashed by your lies.
> 
> Look

I can't understand how that confused mess addresses
the point of this thread:

It is a verified fact that the finite string of machine
code of DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of
the x86 language has different behavior than DDD emulated
by HHH1 according to the semantics of the x86 language.

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