Path: ...!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 correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:18:22 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 193 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 10:18:24 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe0f48013a0a36293531e83ac0dcbef"; logging-data="697205"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/slgyMWbd8Tu1eazJv9g1X" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:S7c4xrYhURgytmWV6uym/yMhw3k= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: nl, en-GB Bytes: 10805 Op 09.mrt.2025 om 04:20 schreef olcott: > On 3/8/2025 8:38 PM, dbush wrote: >> 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 ==========