Path: ...!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 17:58:55 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 199 Message-ID: References: <04db95a103cfbcb76bd6082752ed89932cfce5d5@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 00:58:56 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29a678b7ecb7074967021c8dcb9f1179"; logging-data="1932211"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX190HUz4IiJm1Uwan4RRuYAi" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:CPCW++fRSn33/Wuqzy5wyLBugBQ= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <04db95a103cfbcb76bd6082752ed89932cfce5d5@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 9694 On 7/2/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/2/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote: >> 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. > > Of course that is the way it works. > > You claim you can show something, and I ask you to show it. > > Failure just means you admit to being a liar. > > You need to show your proof, that you can form a "Diagonalization" proof > that Godel's sentence is not true. > > You need to either present the proof, admit you lied that you had one, > or keep being reminded that you have been a liar and can't provide the > proof you claimed you had. > >> >>  >>> But there ARE a set of truth preserving operations in PA to show G, ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========