Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:14:22 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <vqhmse$6m7b$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq6l3k$1r2p8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq72iv$1tapm$3@dont-email.me> <vqbkqs$2t20u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvhm$34c3r$2@dont-email.me> <vqeaiu$3eos7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf1ik$3j68u$3@dont-email.me> <vqh1qj$2ph1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 16:14:23 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ffa3f7c8a9c06536bf515dd54724b6f7";
	logging-data="219371"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19gU5rp2FDUMrplW4EwcnH/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XoQ6pJgxwDFInzwqcA1dBAdC720=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250308-2, 3/8/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vqh1qj$2ph1$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4936

On 3/8/2025 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-03-07 14:58:28 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 3/7/2025 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-03-06 20:11:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 3/6/2025 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-03-04 14:26:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-03-04 03:07:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
>>>>>>>> exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
>>>>>>>> own "ret" instruction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question whether DD emulated by HHH exists is too 
>>>>>>> uninteresting that
>>>>>>> it would need a rebuttal, and so is the question that does it 
>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>> "ret" instruction if it exsists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>> *Proves that the input to HHH(DD) can be rejected as non-halting*
>>>>>
>>>>> As "DD correctly emulated by HHH" does not exist
>>>>
>>>> *No one has made any attempt to show that*
>>>
>>> Maybe not. Perhaps every demonstration of that was just a byproduct of
>>> some other attempt. Anyway, HHH does not emulate DD correctly to the 
>>> end.
>>
>> Simulating termination analyzer HHH simulates its input DD until HHH 
>> correctly determines that DD cannot possibly reach its own "return" 
>> instruction and terminate normally.
> 
> Yes, but your HHH does not. In particular, it never correctly determines
> that DD cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction and terminate
> normally. 

That you fail to understand that the code conclusively
proves this is your ignorance and not my mistake.

A proof is anything and everything that shows a
statement is necessarily true and impossibly false.

The code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it does,
making any disagreements with what it does necessarily
incorrect.

When you say that the directly executed HHH never
reaches its own "ret" instruction you are proven wrong.

When anyone says that DD emulated by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language can possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally they are
conclusively proven wrong.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer