Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR--- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:07:27 +0200 Organization: - Lines: 193 Message-ID: References: <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org> <81f99208ab5ac8261e19355d54de31bb0ba8cdc6@i2pn2.org> <2c05662d218a25329eec1fb052e96758227d094c@i2pn2.org> <9e4fbf536ccba32198cd7e8f00605165347a10da@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 11:07:27 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="567060c6ab1279f1a3853370f52a2405"; logging-data="2024194"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+2SShbA4e3BcIcgtMm5Vn" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:LiL9bshW1159IkutHdbRy+V5kZA= On 2025-03-10 14:10:10 +0000, olcott said: > 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 >>>>> its own final state and terminate normally. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The pattern that HHH sees is IDENTICAL to the pattern that HHH1 saw, up >>>> to the point it aborts. >>>> >>> >>> In other words you do not believe that HHH can see what >>> every competent programmer sees. >>> >> >> The problem is that what "Every Competent Programmer" will see what I >> described, that since HHH aborts and returns 0, that DD will reach the >> return. >> > > typedef void (*ptr)(); > int HHH(ptr P); > > int DD() > { > int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); > if (Halt_Status) > HERE: goto HERE; > return Halt_Status; > } > > int main() > { > HHH(DD); > } > > When their only knowledge of HHH is that HHH emulates ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========