Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 10:43:43 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 107 Message-ID: References: <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org> <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org> <39c74e68a47f768d432f5528493b6db9b946ea83@i2pn2.org> <65d495d5d1da61e1bff8426a80fb7d6b046a7f71@i2pn2.org> <887b6708f135c51df90f7371419797193b127f97@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 10:43:47 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="92d2aaced43ec798e861d918300ef76c"; logging-data="1984998"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mT8XjDjCab6H9JFnj2A+t" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:i90Pm50a5tB4ZArueVEzTTpDG94= Content-Language: nl, en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6800 Op 25.feb.2025 om 01:06 schreef olcott: > On 2/24/2025 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/23/25 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 2/23/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 2/23/25 12:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 2/22/2025 8:41 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 2/22/2025 7:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/22/25 11:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 5:05 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:25:27 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 4:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have given everyone here all of the complete source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code for a few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years >>>>>>>>>>>>>> True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular code. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Every post that I have been talking about for two or more >>>>>>>>>>>>> years has >>>>>>>>>>>>> referred to variations of that same code. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.  It would be a relief if you could move on to posting >>>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>> new and fresh. >>>>>>>>>>> As soon as people fully address rather than endlessly dodge >>>>>>>>>>> my key >>>>>>>>>>> points I will be done. >>>>>>>>>> Honestly, you're gonna die first, one way or the other. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Let's start with a root point. >>>>>>>>>>> All of the other points validate this root point. >>>>>>>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly determines* >>>>>>>>>>> *the non-halt status of DD* >>>>>>>>>> Since DD halts, that's dead in the water. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Despicably intentionally dishonest attempts at the straw-man >>>>>>>>> deception aside: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>>>> normally by reaching its own "return" instruction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Only because that statement is based on a false premise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since HHH doesn't correctly simulate its input, your statement >>>>>>>> is just a fabrication of your imagination. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Correct simulation means emulates the machine code as specified* >>>>>>> It cannot mean imagining a different sequence than the one that >>>>>>> the machine code specifies. That most people here are clueless about >>>>>>> x86 machine code is far less than no rebuttal at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _DD() >>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local >>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD >>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD) >>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04 >>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax >>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 >>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f >>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d >>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04] >>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp >>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp >>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) this call cannot >>>>>>> possibly return to the emulator, conclusively proving >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate >>>>>>> normally by reaching its own "return" instruction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Assuming that it does return is simply stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Similarly, when no_numbers_greater_than_10 emulated by F calls >>>>>> F(0) this call cannot possibly return to the emulator, >>>>>> conclusively proving that >>>>> >>>>> Not true. The stack eventually unwinds after ten emulations. >>>> >>>> Just like a CORRECT emulation of DD would if the HHH doing the >>>> emulation didn't abort (but doing it by the hypothetical of NOT >>>> changing the HHH that DD calls, since that must be the original HHH). >>>> >>>> Your problem is you have lied to yourself about what is a "correct >>>> emulation" >>> >>> In other words you "believe" that the call from DD to HHH(DD) >>> returns when the above DD is emulated by HHH. >> >> What happens in an incorrect emulation doesn't matter, > > One to infinity steps of the above DD emulated by HHH never > terminates normally. Which proves that simulation is not the way to go for a halting decider, because it always fails to reach the normal termination of the halting program when simulating itself.