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: III correctly emulated by EEE --- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:28:11 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 185 Message-ID: References: <76e394abe71be9cdc7f1948e73352c4f76ae409e@i2pn2.org> <9adf9b9c30250aaa2d3142509036c892db2b7096@i2pn2.org> <211f9a2a284cb2deaa666f424c1ef826fe855e80@i2pn2.org> <3f250e699762cfe6fccc844f10eb04f32d470b6a@i2pn2.org> <8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 04:28:12 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="352afb91538e0f1c4396f4d36cbd0f9a"; logging-data="824301"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9NLkNwWzWiSLJxcy940kL" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:j2HdXfpiW+KiE167LBbOZZUqkwY= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250325-18, 3/25/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 10128 On 3/25/2025 7:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/25/25 8:12 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/24/2025 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/24/25 10:14 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/24/2025 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 3/23/25 9:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/23/2025 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/23/25 6:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/23/2025 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/23/25 1:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/23/2025 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/25 11:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/25 2:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2025 11:37 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:43:03 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     HHH(Infinite_Recursion); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no program DDD in the above code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is also no Infinite_Recursion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since no Turing machine M can ever compute the mapping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of any directly executed TM2 referring to the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed DDD has always been incorrect. Halt Deciders >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always report on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior that their input finite string specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please explain what behaviour the description of a TM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "specifies", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and which TM the input describes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill sang a song" describes what Bill did. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tape recording of Bill singing that same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> song completely specifies what Bill did. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what a UTM does with this input completely specifies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its behavior, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In every case that does not involve pathological self- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior that the finite string specifies is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coincidentally the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior as the direct execution of the corresponding >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual measure, however, has always been the behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string input specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...which is the direct execution. Not much of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coincidence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _III() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any correct emulator EEE correctly emulates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite number of steps of an input III that calls this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same emulator to emulate itself the behavior of the direct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of III will not be the same as the behavior of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the emulated III. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Becuase a finite emulation that stop before the end is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a correct emulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you keep dishonestly trying to get away with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreeing with the law of identity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When N steps are III are correctly emulated by EEE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then N steps are III are correctly emulated by EEE. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't the same as the CORRECT emulation that shows if >>>>>>>>>>>>> the program being emulated will halt/. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> There exists no Natural Number N number of steps of III >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by EEE where III reaches its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> own "ret" instruction and terminates normally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you agree that the recursive emulation >>>>>>>>>>>> of a single finite string of x86 machine code single >>>>>>>>>>>> machine address [00002172] cannot possibly reach its >>>>>>>>>>>> own machine address [00002183]when emulated by emulator >>>>>>>>>>>> EEE according to the semantics of the x86 language. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But it isn't a single finite string of x86 machince code, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As a matter of verified fact it is a single finite >>>>>>>>>> string of machine code at a fixed offset in the >>>>>>>>>> Halt7.obj file. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope, because DEFINTIONALLY, to correctly emulate it, you need >>>>>>>>> ALL of it (at least all seen by the emulator) and thus you >>>>>>>>> can't change the parts seen and still be talking about the same >>>>>>>>> input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your claim just shows you are a patholgical liar. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can not "correctly emulate" the code of just the function, >>>>>>>>> you need the rest of the code, which mean you can't do the >>>>>>>>> variations you talk about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> x86utm operates on a compiled object file that >>>>>>>> is stored in a single location of global memory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right, and thus you must consider *ALL* of that memory as the >>>>>>> input, so if you change it, it is a different input. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You haven't yet noticed that all posts with this title >>>>>> [III correctly emulated by EEE] are talking about a pure >>>>>> emulator that emulates a finite number of instructions of III. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which is just a strawman, and a contradiction, as the definition of >>>>> "correct emulation" (to be able to use it in the halting problem as >>>>> a surrogate for the programs behavior) must be complete. >>>>> >>>> >>>> _III() >>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping >>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III >>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III) >>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04 >>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp >>>> [00002183] c3         ret >>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>> >>>> You continue to look increasingly foolish when you >>>> try to keep getting away with denying that III ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========