Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD) --- REFUTES
 INCORRECT REQUIREMENTS
Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 16:42:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <vvr5kn$lb5m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vvla98$2rl0l$19@dont-email.me> <vvmvfs$3dqci$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvnr4s$3in62$6@dont-email.me> <vvpqdi$45o8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvqj44$gldn$9@dont-email.me>
 <096ba9f48fbd8899613b0f7ace14cd89acc3dbae@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 23:42:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ef7faca461217fa132b1f53eef89d0be";
	logging-data="699574"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18mWlQ7eZKGydoN9hiGfZH3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mN1xc5LdsOC3mrfpeuT8r6xkNHU=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250511-4, 5/11/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <096ba9f48fbd8899613b0f7ace14cd89acc3dbae@i2pn2.org>

On 5/11/2025 3:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/11/25 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/11/2025 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-05-10 15:25:16 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/10/2025 2:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-05-09 16:25:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When 1 or more statements of DDD are correctly
>>>>>> simulated by HHH then this correctly simulated
>>>>>> DDD cannot possibly reach its own “return statement”.
>>>>>> (final halt state)
>>>>>
>>>>> That one or more statements of DDD are correctly simulated does not
>>>>> mean that DDD is correctly simulated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is stipulated that when one or more statements
>>>> of DDD are correctly simulated that one or more
>>>> statements of DDD are correctly simulated.
>>>
>>> Thera are only two statements in DDD. HHH does not correctly emulate
>>> the first one, which is a call to HHH, and not at all the second one,
>>> which is the final return.
>>>
>>
>> _DDD()
>> [0000219e] 55             push ebp
>> [0000219f] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>> [000021a1] 689e210000     push 0000219e // push DDD
>> [000021a6] e843f4ffff     call 000015ee // call HHH
>> [000021ab] 83c404         add esp,+04
>> [000021ae] 5d             pop ebp
>> [000021af] c3             ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021af]
>>
>> There are seven instructions in DDD.
>> When DDD calls HHH(DDD) then HHH emulates
>> itself emulating DDD.
>>
>>
> 
> Then either HHH is just wrong, 

DDD is emulated by HHH according to the only correct
measure the rules of the x86 language.

> violating the definition of the input, or 

I told you far too many times that HHH and DDD
are in the same memory space. This means that
HHH must emulate itself emulating DDD or it
did not emulate the first 7 instructions of DDD
correctly.

> isn't a pure function, and thus can use my static hack to correct 
> emulate the input to the final state.
> 

Refusing to emulate DDD after one emulation
cannot possibly derive a simulating termination
analyzer, thus this break requirements.

> Sorry, you are just showing that you are lying by equivocation.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer