Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 07:39:30 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 156 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:39:31 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be8a74d1ebb79f081dc40b5f7175e5aa"; logging-data="1731642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/sIpStX7OGAcry2xcGDdfT" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:TWwNtNnwQ/dvtK+C/uOlav76WX0= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7708 On 7/2/2024 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/1/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/1/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 7/1/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/1/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 7/1/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/1/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/1/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/1/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 3:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:20 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _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 cannot possibly return, because HHH aborts itself one >>>>>>>>>>> cycle too early, showing that the emulation is incorrect. If >>>>>>>>>>> that is over your head, try to learn how x86 instructions work. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an >>>>>>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CAN'T BE. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A "Correct Emulation" is one that produces the same result as >>>>>>>>> the program at the input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which can only possibly occur be disregarding the semantics >>>>>>>> of the x86 language. Liars would do that ignoramuses would do >>>>>>>> that. Everyone with the equivalent of a BSCS would know that >>>>>>>> what I said is true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why do you say that? That is EXACTLY the definition of Correct >>>>>>> Emulation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH. >>>>>> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH. >>>>>> WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH. >>>>> >>>>> And denying definitions is just lying. >>>> >>>> It may seem that way when you don't bother to pay >>>> attention that this definition is contradicted >>>> by verified facts. >>> >>> WHAT "Verified facts". >>> >>> THe fact that DDD will halt since your HHH(DDD) retuns? >>> >>>> >>>> Indoctrination will cause this. The only cure is >>>> correct reasoning by assuming that everything that >>>> anyone ever told you about anything is possibly >>>> false until conclusively proven otherwise. >>> >>> Nope, but failure to follow the defined rules gets you kick out of >>> the club. >>> >>>> >>>> If everyone always did this then Nazi propaganda >>>> could not possibly have any chance of success. >>> >>> But THEY Lied, and to could be shown so, >>> >>> Just like your statements. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> void Infinite_Loop() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion(); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows >>>>>> that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, >>>>>> Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations >>>>>> so that itself can terminate normally. >>>>>> >>>>>> SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT >>>>>> SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT >>>>>> SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, DDD does halt if HHH is a decider and HHH(DDD) returns. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is the same nutty bullshit as Gödel's 1931 incompleteness >>>> theorem. If there are no truth preserving operations in PA to >>>> either G or ~G then G has no truthmaker in PA making G not a >>>> truth-bearer in PA. >>> >>> But there ARE a set of truth preserving operations in PA to show G, >>> it is just that it takes an infinite number of them, so they don't >>> constitute a proof. >>> >> >> Diagonalization conclusively proves otherwise and you know it. >> Maybe the issue is that you are fundamentally a liar. >> >> > > How? > > I call your bluff, show your "cards" or FOLD. > That is not the way it works, you made a false claim and I call your bluff on this false claim. You must provide a linked source that agrees. >>> But there ARE a set of truth preserving operations in PA to show G, >>> it is just that it takes an infinite number of them, so they don't >>> constitute a proof. *This source says nothing like what you claim* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer