Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 23:21:30 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 03:21:30 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1845994"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 6709 Lines: 140 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. Something you don't seem to understand. > > We can say that this makes PA incomplete yet PA would be > incomplete in the same way that dogs do not climb trees > or lay eggs. > Nope, it is incomplete, because there is a truth established by an infinite number of steps, that can not be proven in a finite number of steps. that you can't count, doesn't make it false, it makes you stupid. And by repeating your stupid remarks after being corrected, a LIAR.