Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth V4
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 19:09:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ce0996b102d2cf25c90d92ee55bbc953e266219b@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9q52r$1tedb$1@dont-email.me> <v9sci9$2b063$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9sp71$2c67u$11@dont-email.me> <v9usb0$2pmb8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9vckj$2rjt1$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:09:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3166590"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9vckj$2rjt1$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3424
Lines: 73

On 8/19/24 8:08 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/19/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-18 12:25:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>
> 
> *Everything that is not expressly stated below is*
> *specified as unspecified*
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> _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]
> 
> *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
> *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
> *running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
> 
> X = DDD emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the x86 language
> Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD
> Z = DDD never stops running
> 
> My claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
> 
> void EEE()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
> }
> 
> HHHn predicts the behavior of DDD the same
> way that HHHn predicts the behavior of EEE.
> 
>>>
>>> That HHH <is> and x86 emulator <is> sufficient to
>>> determine exactly what the behavior of DDD emulated by HHH
>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language would be.
>>
>> The last "would be" means that the clause is conterfactual.
>> But why would anybody care about the conterfactual behaviour?
>>
> 
> It is not counter-factual.
> 

Remember, you said: Everything that is not expressly stated below is*
specified as unspecified

Therefore HHHn can NOT correctly emulate DDD past the call HHH 
instruction, because it doesn't HAVE the instruciton of the PROGRAM DDD 
(which is what you emulate) since it doesn't have the instruction at 
000015D2.

The contents of the memory at 000015D2 can not be accessable to HHHn, as 
the input is described as DDD and not DDDn, so the input doesn't change 
between instances, and thus CAN'T contain that memory that changes, and 
thus is not valid to be part of the input.

Thus we also have that HHH∞ can not exist, so both your premises just 
fail to be possible.

Sorry, you are just repeating your error because apparently you just 
can't learn.