Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- partial simulation never reaches its halt state, but full behavior does ---natural number mapping Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 13:23:56 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <332fdac834dd53dbe6a8650e170f08fac33ca2cf@i2pn2.org> References: <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org> <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <1e1fa9bc4bbc00aa65c1a7974bd1bda87687c92b@i2pn2.org> <47a76378d634bf0db4017f879d0160793b57125e@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 17:23:57 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2111483"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6682 Lines: 117 On 8/10/24 10:24 AM, olcott wrote: > On 8/10/2024 9:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 10.aug.2024 om 15:37 schreef olcott: >>> On 8/10/2024 8:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 10.aug.2024 om 14:06 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 8/10/2024 6:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 8/10/24 7:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-08-09 14:51:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-08 13:18:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely >>>>>>>>>>> *emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In >>>>>>>>>>> none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach >>>>>>>>>>> its "return" instruction halt state. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The ranges of "each HHH" and "every HHH" are not defined above >>>>>>>>>> so that does not really mean anything. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Here is something that literally does not mean anything: >>>>>>>>> "0i34ine ir m0945r (*&ubYU  I*(ubn)I*054 gfdpodf[" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looks like encrypted text that might mean something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This could be encrypted text, too, or perhaps refers to some >>>>>>>> inside knowledge or convention. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I defined an infinite set of HHH x86 emulators. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe somewnete but not in the message I commented. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I stipulated that each member of this set emulates >>>>>>>>> zero to infinity instructions of DDD. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That doesn't restrict much. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *I can't say it this way without losing 90% of my audience* >>>>>>>>> Each element of this set is mapped to one element of the >>>>>>>>> set of non-negative integers indicating the number of >>>>>>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is easier to talk about mapping if is given a name. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *This one seems to be good* >>>>>>>>> Each element of this set corresponds to one element of >>>>>>>>> the set of positive integers indicating the number of >>>>>>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That would mean that only a finite number (possibly zero) of >>>>>>>> instructions is emulated. But the restriction to DDD does not >>>>>>>> seem reasonable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that* >>>>>> >>>>>> I thopught HHH was a deider? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Each element of this set corresponds to one element of >>>>>>> the set of positive integers indicating the number of >>>>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it correctly emulates. >>>>>> >>>>>> And only those element of the set that either reach the final >>>>>> state, or simulate forever are "correct" emulators of the whole >>>>>> program, suitable to show halting. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> void DDD() >>>>> { >>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>    return; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> In other words even though it is dead obvious to >>>>> us that a complete simulation of DDD simulated by HHH >>>> >>>> is impossible, because HHH is programmed to abort and, therefore, it >>>> is unable to do a complete simulation. >>> >>> A complete simulation of DDD by a pure x86 emulator >>> named HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" >>> instruction halt state. >> >> Indeed, HHH fails to reach its own halt state. HHH cannot possibly >> simulate itself up to its halt state. >> Which proves that the simulation is incomplete and, therefore, incorrect. >> > > That an emulation of an input is necessary correct no matter > what-the-Hell it does as long as it conforms to the semantics > of the x86 language is either over your head or you persistently > lie about it. > Which isn't "what the hell it does". but a correct x86 emulation by the semantic of the x86 language will ALWAYS and ONLY behave EXACTLY like that input when run as a program, and thus MUST include all of the instructions use, including that of all the routines it calls. Since HHH has been shown to NOT do a correct emulation, claims of what a correct emulation does are irrelevent. Since every HHH is different, and creates a different DDD, it is just a LIE to use the behavior of one DDD/HHH pair to justify the behavior of a differents HHH's input. Sorry, you are just proving yourself to be too stupid to understand your own misunderstandings, which is the worse type of stupid to be.