Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 22:21:09 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <1b577ce21ceaedded4912eb50450f5b88e8ce8dc@i2pn2.org> References: <81f99208ab5ac8261e19355d54de31bb0ba8cdc6@i2pn2.org> <2c05662d218a25329eec1fb052e96758227d094c@i2pn2.org> <9e4fbf536ccba32198cd7e8f00605165347a10da@i2pn2.org> <7ab4502795ab1583e38687e478a4892bb4c0e0e5@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 02:21:09 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3813142"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 10912 Lines: 224 On 3/10/25 7:04 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/10/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 3/10/25 10:10 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/10/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 3/9/25 11:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/9/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 3/9/25 6:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/9/2025 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/9/25 3:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2025 2:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/25 9:25 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2025 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/25 10:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/25 6:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:01 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 11:41 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:01 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:09 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source code contains a finite sequence of truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving steps between axioms and a statement? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source code 100% completely specifies every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single detail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of exactly what it does on each specific input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saying that it does not do this is counter-factual. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, the source code does not meet the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of a proof, so your claim is false. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dumb Bunny: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Proof[0] is anything that shows that X is necessarily >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *and thus impossibly false* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The source-code in Halt7.c combined with the input to HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves every detail of the behavior of HHH on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input. Disagreeing this is either foolish or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A proof is a finite sequence of truth preserving steps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the axioms of a system and a true statement that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show the statement is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Proof[math] tries unsuccessfully to inherit from proof[0]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am stipulating that I have always been referring to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof[0]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I am pointing out that it IS the same, it is just that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't understand that "Show" implies FINITE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In that single aspect you are correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Show that X is definitely true and thus impossibly false >>>>>>>>>>>>> by any means what-so-ever is not proof[math]. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> or proof[0], since you can not SHOW something "by any means" >>>>>>>>>>>> if those means are not showable due to not being finite. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just proving your stupidity by repeating your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disproved claim. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you cannot understand the Halt7.c conclusively proves[0] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of HHH(DD) this is merely your lack of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding and nothing more. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can understand what it does, as Halt7.c shows that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of the input is to HALT since that is what DD >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will do when main calls it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU KNOW YOU WERE WRONG* >>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally >>>>>>>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But The HHH You are talking about doesn't do a correct >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation, so this statment is not applicable. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> WHich is *NOT* a program, as it has an external reference. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach >>>>>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally >>>>>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wrong, because emulaiting for "N Steps" is NOT correctly >>>>>>>>>> emulation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Correctly emulating N steps is emulating N steps correctly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which is only partially emulating it correctly, and only >>>>>>>> partially correct is incorrect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everyone here that has sufficient technical competence can >>>>>>>>> see that for any N steps of DD correctly emulated by HHH >>>>>>>>> that DD cannot possibly reach its own final state and >>>>>>>>> terminate normally. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So? As has been pointed out, since HHH can't do enough steps to >>>>>>>> get to the actual answer, it never CORRECTLY emulated the input >>>>>>>> enough to get the answer if it aborts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If HHH can see the same pattern that every competent >>>>>>> programmer sees then HHH does not need to emulate DD >>>>>>> more than twice to know that HHH cannot possibly reach ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========