Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2024 22:28:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <v584ou$5ski$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v50o2t$2fh98$2@dont-email.me>
 <v51dc8$2jmrd$1@dont-email.me> <v53b0s$324b4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v53tjm$35vak$1@dont-email.me> <v565d9$3mg7e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v56iht$3or0r$4@dont-email.me> <v576d7$3sg5p$2@dont-email.me>
 <v576k6$3soh6$3@dont-email.me> <v578a9$onl3$16@i2pn2.org>
 <v579lm$3t97b$2@dont-email.me> <v57b2q$onl3$19@i2pn2.org>
 <v57ok9$5d7$3@dont-email.me> <v57pcq$onl3$21@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 05:28:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f19a017657c3e3f4d15756f16e311b4d";
	logging-data="193170"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+YAlTuhQfN+yOWdpe/Hiaz"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BkJhiJlXJflfp+ffYUMXN9vs0Xc=
In-Reply-To: <v57pcq$onl3$21@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3423

On 6/22/2024 7:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
>> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see
>> that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to
>> H0(DDD) cannot possibly return.
> 
> Right, so what do you do when you run out of instructions to simulate?
> 
> Your logic just BLOWS UP.
> 

That you are too stupid to see an infinite recursion behavior
pattern does not mean that I am not correct.

>>
>> _DDD()
>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>> [00002183] c3               ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>
>>
> 
> This exposes the LIE of your system. YOu CAN'T correctly x86 emulate a 
> partial program, becuase it isn't prpgram with behavior to emulate.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> That means, the call to H0(DDD), to have any actual meaning, must 
> incluede *ALL* the instrutions in memory that are going to be used as 
> part of the input, and thus, DDD is TIED to the H0 that we started with, 
> so your "trick" of changing it is shows to just be a LIE.
> 
> 
> You just don't understand that behavior is determined of an SPECIFIC 
> program, a specific instance of the template AFTER pairing it with the 
> decider it is to foil, and when you ask about other deciders looking at 
> THIS input, the input can't change.
> 
> There goes your two decades down the drain.

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