Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:00:56 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 68 Message-ID: References: <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5nSdnSkMN76jIOH7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:00:57 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6b7ddfe8775f34f568700240d9d1b"; logging-data="2675332"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FJqYgIq8IM1Qy9U1r3gPE" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:o31plkCEQlTSxqH0PrWEEWnv8n0= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <5nSdnSkMN76jIOH7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> Bytes: 4497 On 6/26/2024 8:15 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 27/06/2024 01:42, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/26/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>>>>>>>> That the the way that lies are defined. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Source for you claim? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the >>>>>>>> system to that claim? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04 >>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp >>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I already told you that example does not count. >>>>> >>>>> I can't keep repeating those details or others >>>>> that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is >>>>> will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension. >>>>> >>>> >>>> WHy not? >>>> >>> >>> We have already been over that you know that you cheated. >>> >> >> Nope, since you didn't put in the rule, and if you had it would have >> shown that you lied, as if H0 is a pure function then the call to H0 >> emulated by H0 needs to have the same behaivor as the direct call to >> H0 by main. > > Incidentally, the nonconformance you're referring to is shown explicitly > in the "195 page trace" that PO linked to.  [I.e. the simulated H does > not correctly track the code path of the outer H.] > > Mike. > > I think that it does. I checked it all over again and I think that it always did. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer