Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5 Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 08:13:57 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 87 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 15:13:58 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5377c0fdd88ce017cc92254daa4bcf0b"; logging-data="3571231"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Ajz/CI4wHoCHiud2S1idD" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:TzpyEOVFxoF1IWtpSGq6jXh5bYw= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5124 On 8/20/2024 3:45 AM, joes wrote: > Am Mon, 19 Aug 2024 23:33:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 8/19/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 8/19/24 11:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/19/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 8/19/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> *Everything that is not expressly stated below is* >>>>>> *specified as unspecified* >>>>> Looks like you still have this same condition. >>>>> I thought you said you removed it. > >>>>>> _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] >>>>> But it can't emulate DDD correctly past 4 instructions, since the 5th >>>>> instruciton to emulate doesn't exist. >>>>> And, you can't include the memory that holds HHH, as you mention HHHn >>>>> below, so that changes, but DDD, so the input doesn't and thus is >>>>> CAN'T be part of the input. > Changing the code, but not the address, constitutes a change. > >>>>>> x86utm takes the compiled Halt7.obj file of this c program >>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c Thus making >>>>>> all of the code of HHH directly available to DDD and itself. HHH >>>>>> emulates itself emulating DDD. >>>>> >>>>> Which is irrelevent and a LIE as if HHHn is part of the input, that >>>>> input needs to be DDDn >>>>> And, in fact, >>>>> Since, you have just explicitly introduced that all of HHHn is >>>>> available to HHHn when it emulates its input, that DDD must actually >>>>> be DDDn as it changes. >>>>> >>>>> Thus, your ACTUAL claim needs to be more like: >>>>> 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 >>>>> The above claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z >>>>> >>>> Yes that is correct. >>> >>> So, you only prove that the DDD∞ that calls the HHH∞ is non-halting. >>> Not any of the other DDDn > >>>>> Your problem is that for any other DDDn / HHHn, you don't have Y so >>>>> you don't have Z. > >>>>>> HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of DDD the same way that HHHn >>>>>> correctly predicts the behavior of EEE. >>>>>> >>>>> Nope, HHHn can form a valid inductive proof of the input. >>>>> It can't for DDDn, since when we move to HHHn+1 we no longer have >>>>> DDDn but DDDn+1, which is a different input. >>>>> >>>> You already agreed that (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z is correct. >>>> Did you do an infinite trace in your mind? >>> >>> But only for DDD∞, not any of the other ones. > >>>> If you can do it and I can do it then HHH can do this same sort of >>>> thing. Computations are not inherently dumber than human minds. >>>> >>> But HHHn isn't given DDD∞ as its input, so that doesn't matter. >>> >> All of the DDD have identical bytes it is only the HHH that varies. >> HHHn(DDD) predicts the behavior of HHH∞(DDD). >> It does this same same way that HHHn(EEE) >> predicts the behavior of HHH∞(EEE). > The bytes of HHH are part of DDD. > *The following criteria only means* HHHn(DDD) correctly predicts the behavior of HHH∞(EEE) and HHH∞(DDD) If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted then -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer