Path: 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 20:06:22 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 132 Message-ID: References: <8354fe5751e03a767452a3999818d5c6da714a6b@i2pn2.org> <76e394abe71be9cdc7f1948e73352c4f76ae409e@i2pn2.org> <9adf9b9c30250aaa2d3142509036c892db2b7096@i2pn2.org> <211f9a2a284cb2deaa666f424c1ef826fe855e80@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 02:06:24 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="937db52631d074d5f8724ea8775a1ccd"; logging-data="3810961"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19PQjyyNkdjDOofxoU4dy5e" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:9UZThoBbiLf1hig4cEhQk3SLDm4= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250323-4, 3/23/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US 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. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer