Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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 21:08:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <vs7kmv$3eal$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrvccp$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>
 <vs6osm$39556$2@dont-email.me>
 <094949a5a2ac4dec2df1ab428d48137ef3c9d79f@i2pn2.org>
 <vs78i8$3ms9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <a21e992a1c68f9bc1b1cfa68d4674b835294737a@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 03:08:31 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8799149c9052e099521fa413fa47d8eb";
	logging-data="112981"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+4MG6qqmn4BysysyxlNd7o"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ijYHyD3YSmYYg9H+zQ4I+cPdLN8=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250328-4, 3/28/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <a21e992a1c68f9bc1b1cfa68d4674b835294737a@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7175

On 3/28/2025 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/28/25 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/28/2025 4:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/28/25 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where did you "verify" that LIE.
>>>
>>> You claim fails the simple test:
>>>
>>> What is the first instruction actually correctly emulated by the 
>>> rules of the x86 language by HHH and HHH1 that had a different result.
>>>
>>
>> When DDD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) this call NEVER returns.
> 
> Only because your HHH doesn't do a correct emulation. PERIOD,
> 

I am defining a correct emulation as obeying the semantics
of the x86 language and you are defining it to disagree
with this semantics thus proving that you know you are lying.


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