Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: III correctly emulated by EEE --- Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 22:53:23 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <8354fe5751e03a767452a3999818d5c6da714a6b@i2pn2.org> <76e394abe71be9cdc7f1948e73352c4f76ae409e@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 02:53:24 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1355129"; 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: 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 each emulation is of a DIFFERENT PROGRAM, and thus the results of one can't be apppled to the other. Sorry, you are just proving you don't know what the words actually mean.