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: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 17:57:05 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 191 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 23:57:06 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="61544cd49926c0716809366eec9fc285"; logging-data="2913334"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18IJhIguj/7kVo0hZa9rPrp" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:7raROhBJKKMmSfm9FvX/EcD/mZg= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250326-16, 3/26/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: Bytes: 10708 On 3/26/2025 6:24 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/25/25 11:28 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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] >>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========