Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:40:33 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 180 Message-ID: References: <27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org> <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2025 03:40:33 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a7cd4af0ac1547313f65cbaef3f65f1f"; logging-data="445891"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/asT5b4CyC+OdOMEEk8VRr" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q/GT+l73XdunqnRQknXK7Cs1x0Y= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 9910 On 3/8/2025 9:33 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/8/2025 7:52 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 3/8/2025 8:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/8/2025 6:54 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 3/8/2025 7:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:54 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 3/8/2025 6:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/8/25 9:09 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 03:31 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:20 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:57 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you know that what you're working >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on has nothing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with the halting problem, but you don't care. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFLECTION. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you know these things pretty >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well SO QUIT THE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SHIT! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing the code of HHH to an unconditional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator and running >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD) will not halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own "ret" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, replacing the code of HHH with an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconditional >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt, which you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously agreed is correct: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>> terminate normally by reaching its own "return" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> unconditional simulator then it can be shown that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> non-halting and therefore HHH(DD)==0 is correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   > Wow finally someone that totally gets it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you disagree, explain why this is different. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In particular, give an example where X correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by Y is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different from replacing the code of Y with an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconditional simulator >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and subsequently running Y(X). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I may not have enough time left to change the subject >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and endlessly go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through anything but the exact point. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You used to have enough time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is before the CAR T cell manufacturing process >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failed twice. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which really means you need to abandon your fraudulent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> methods >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally >>>>>>>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No such HHH exists. >>>>>>>>>>>> The programmer of HHH has the following options when HHH >>>>>>>>>>>> reaches the call to HHH: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) It just follows the call and starts simulating the code >>>>>>>>>>>> of HHH. This might eventually lead to infinite recursion. >>>>>>>>>>>> So, no correct simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The code proves otherwise >>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A program does not prove. In particular, it does not prove >>>>>>>>>> that no >>>>>>>>>> different program exists. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The source code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it >>>>>>>>> actually does. Whenever anyone disagrees with what it >>>>>>>>> actually does (as most people here have tried to get >>>>>>>>> away with) they are necessarily incorrect. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which is that HHH will look at memory not defined to be part of >>>>>>>> its input, and thus HHH is not the pure function you have agreed >>>>>>>> it must be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY AGREE OR STFU !!! >>>>>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and >>>>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD)  cannot possibly >>>>>>> reach its own final state and terminate normally. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two people with masters degrees in computer science >>>>>>> agreed. Gaslighting me on this makes you look like >>>>>>> a complete nitwit. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think everyone would agree, as you said, that if the code of HHH >>>>>> is replaced with an unconditional simulator and HHH(DD) is run, >>>>>> that it will not halt. >>>>>> >>>>>> So now what? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We add the mandatory required details to your simplistic >>>>> idea such that additional elaboration from this full set >>>>> of details: >>>>> >>>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and >>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach >>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally >>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. >>>>> >>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========