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: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:34:57 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 78 Message-ID: References: <61f821b5a18046ab36ddb6c52a003b574cf34de6@i2pn2.org> <9be1ff2af6bbf405565b27bc8211adf9f353e9f2@i2pn2.org> <3ff8345ef2ddb51594c67cf7f5cbb81f696afbc5@i2pn2.org> <8a8d4ac681ff887744c6a24e9c8f2777222da16f@i2pn2.org> <6e702874c08a1f683fe9dd3afb88c66c37456d46@i2pn2.org> <094949a5a2ac4dec2df1ab428d48137ef3c9d79f@i2pn2.org> <607f1a265c69f2d2c1c116e0d2ffaaea862d7a25@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:34:58 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25098614a506fec9a884b9c00c7b5ec8"; logging-data="2354852"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VslDS8qdUU//LrhF/r1Sm" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:3NSXjV2AvsS8vTQ6vyMVFgLCprg= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <607f1a265c69f2d2c1c116e0d2ffaaea862d7a25@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 5786 On 3/29/2025 3:01 PM, joes wrote: > Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:28:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 3/29/2025 4:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2025-03-28 22:41:12 +0000, olcott said: >>>> 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: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > The x86 language or my supposed ignorance thereof doesn't prove shit. > HHH does not simulate the infinite stack of recursive simulations, > for obvious reasons. > >>>>>>>>>>> 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. > One cannot show something impossible. > >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. > Non sequitur. > >>>>> 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. >>> >>> When DDD is correctly emulated the call HHH(DDD) returns. >>> >> When are you going to understand that disagreeing with the semantics of >> the x86 language IS NOT ALLOWED? > Disagree with what semantics exactly? The call to HHH *must* return. > Sure and any code placed inside of an infinite loop must magically break out of this loop. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer