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: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:21:14 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 126 Message-ID: References: <8354fe5751e03a767452a3999818d5c6da714a6b@i2pn2.org> <76e394abe71be9cdc7f1948e73352c4f76ae409e@i2pn2.org> <9adf9b9c30250aaa2d3142509036c892db2b7096@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 18:21:15 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f92c4786d2cda46e6b9083b2e30acd51"; logging-data="2960943"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19l0qbJAiLWHXs6qO7TrH8U" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:owcGIHVUfXf8PtMUUEkiOuLXHFU= In-Reply-To: <9adf9b9c30250aaa2d3142509036c892db2b7096@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250323-4, 3/23/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 6475 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. > as to emulate > it we need to include the machine code of EEE, Which would also be a single finite string of machine code at a fixed offset in the Halt7.obj file if it was not an infinite set of hypothetical pure x86 emulators. > which you just said froms > an infinite set of partial emulators. > > That is your fundamental problem, that you need to redefine the meaning > of core terms A freaking set of pure x86 emulators EEE[0] to EEE[N] that emulates 0 to N instructions of III IS NOT REDEFINING ANY TERMS. > to try to "establish" your facts, and thus you don't > establish them in the logic system you claim to be talking about (the > one that Turing made his claim in) > > Sorry, your statements are just self-contradictory, and you are proven > to be ignoran. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer