Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:41:12 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 110 Message-ID: References: <61f821b5a18046ab36ddb6c52a003b574cf34de6@i2pn2.org> <9be1ff2af6bbf405565b27bc8211adf9f353e9f2@i2pn2.org> <3ff8345ef2ddb51594c67cf7f5cbb81f696afbc5@i2pn2.org> <8a8d4ac681ff887744c6a24e9c8f2777222da16f@i2pn2.org> <6e702874c08a1f683fe9dd3afb88c66c37456d46@i2pn2.org> <094949a5a2ac4dec2df1ab428d48137ef3c9d79f@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:41:13 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="297ec9b99b90c1a452f27cfdbb15f922"; logging-data="3895604"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/7wyxTr4rDC5RaPCxi2vCB" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:K6VtAPCiEbE9f24DyBWJowV/hvc= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <094949a5a2ac4dec2df1ab428d48137ef3c9d79f@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250328-4, 3/28/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 6641 On 3/28/2025 4:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/28/25 2:13 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/28/2025 8:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/27/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/27/2025 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 3/27/25 9:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/27/25 8:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 4:56 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:10:46 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/25 11:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 10:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/25 11:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> staste even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if an unbounded number of steps are emulated. Since HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, it isn't showing non-halting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its final state >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded number of steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But DDD emulated by an actually correct emulator will, >>>>>>>>>>>> If you were not intentionally persisting in a lie you would >>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge the dead obvious that DDD emulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>> according to the >>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly correctly >>>>>>>>>>>> reach its >>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping >>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04 >>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp >>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, HHH is not a correct simulator. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You say that it is not a correct simulator on the basis >>>>>>>> of your ignorance of the x86 language that conclusively >>>>>>>> proves that HHH does correctly simulate the first four >>>>>>>> instructions of DDD and correctly simulates itself >>>>>>>> simulating the first four instructions of DDD. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It isn't a correct simulator, >>>>>> >>>>>> You know that you are lying about this or you would >>>>>> show how DDD emulated by HHH would reach its final state >>>>>> ACCORDING TO THE SEMANTICS OF THE X86 LANGUAGE. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It can't be, because your HHH doesn't meet your requirement. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You cannot show that because you know you are lying about that. >>>> >>> >>> Sure we can, make a main that directly calls HHH and then DDD, then >>> call HHH1(DDD) >>> >>> That HHH will return 0, saying that DDD is non-halting, but the DDD >>> wll return, showing that DDD is halting. >>> >>> Look at the trace that HHH generates, and that HHH1 generates, HHH's >>> will be a subset of the trace that HHH1 generates, showing that it is >>> NOT proof that this program is non-halting as that exact same initial >>> segment halts. >>> >>> Your argument about changing HHH shows that it doesn't halt is just >>> invalid, as then you either changed the input, or demonstrated that >>> you input was a class error as it didn't contain the COMPLETE >>> representation of the code of DDD. >>> >>> Sorry, This is what you have been told for years, but you refuse to >>> look at the truth, because you have been brainwashed by your lies. >>> >>> Look >> >> I can't understand how that confused mess addresses >> the point of this thread: >> >> It is a verified fact that the finite string of machine >> code of DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of >> the x86 language has different behavior than DDD emulated >> by HHH1 according to the semantics of the x86 language. >> > > Where did you "verify" that LIE. > > You claim fails the simple test: > > What is the first instruction actually correctly emulated by the rules > of the x86 language by HHH and HHH1 that had a different result. > When DDD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DDD) this call NEVER returns. When DDD emulated by HHH1 calls HHH(DDD) this call returns. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer