Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic Subject: Re: The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 22:36:59 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <6d6808c203a1946042da8080e623f0b4eef4cea6@i2pn2.org> References: <1021ii4$3327l$6@dont-email.me> <3fded8d2a57749379aedf050e3f99925918ae78e@i2pn2.org> <7db54ccb7f3273c5a93f8ee645b8c7a324fa1a40@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 02:42:52 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3901545"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 On 6/8/25 1:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 13:24:45 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: > >> On 6/8/25 10:25 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 07:08:06 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/8/25 5:35 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2025 18:56:09 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/7/25 10:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence of DDD >>>>>>> emulated by HHH from DDD emulated by HHH1. >>>>>> >>>>>> No it doesn't, all you are doing is showing you don't know what an >>>>>> execution trace needs to show, because "correct" seems to be a >>>>>> foreign word to you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>>   HHH1(DDD); >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shows that DDD emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by HHH1 diverges as >>>>>>> soon as HHH begins emulating itself emulating DDD. >>>>>> >>>>>> But never correctly emulates the CALL instruction, as REQUIRED to be >>>>>> a correct emulation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note, to even do that you first need to fix the input, as the input >>>>>> you give is IMPOSSIBLE to "correctly emulate" as the correct >>>>>> emulation of the call HHH instruction will requiring knowing the >>>>>> contents of 000015c3 (the code of the function HHH) but that >>>>>> infomation is not available. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> *From the execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shown below* >>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH [00002183] >>>>>>> push ebp               [00002183] push ebp [00002184] mov ebp,esp >>>>>>> [00002184] mov ebp,esp [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186] >>>>>>> push 00002183 ; DDD [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b] >>>>>>> call 000015c3 ; HHH *HHH1 emulates DDD once then HHH emulates DDD >>>>>>> once, >>>>>>> these match* >>>>>> >>>>>> And NEITHER of the following is a correct emulation of the input, as >>>>>> per the definition of the call instruction, the next instruction to >>>>>> be processed will be at location 000015c3. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, all you are doing is proving your stupidity, as you clearly >>>>>> don't understand teh meaning of the words you are using, even when >>>>>> they have been explained to you many timees. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess you just want to prove to the world that you are just a >>>>>> stupid liar. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at the machine >>>>>>> address of 00002183. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> WRONG. I guess you are just asserting that it is ok to just LIE >>>>>> about what is happening, and that either your HHH is just not >>>>>> emulating itself as you claim (and thus it is a lie) or you are just >>>>>> misresenting what it is doing, by omitting the stes in that proof >>>>>> that shows >>>>>> >>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at the machine >>>>>>> address of 00002190. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, not by your above definition, as if the emulator can claim its >>>>>> input is doing what the emulation of an emulator is seeing, then it >>>>>> should see exactly the same thing as above. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note, the HHH that HHH is emulating is a DIFFERENT execution >>>>>> context, and thus aren't both by the "HHH" that is doing the >>>>>> deciding, but can only be shown under the guise of a simulation of a >>>>>> simulation shows that simulated code. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is in your LYING editing of the traces. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 00002183 != 00002190 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>> [00002183] 55             push ebp [00002184] 8bec           mov >>>>>>> ebp,esp [00002186] 6883210000     push 00002183 ; push DDD >>>>>>> [0000218b] e833f4ffff     call 000015c3 ; call HHH [00002190] >>>>>>> 83c404         add esp,+04 [00002193] 5d             pop ebp >>>>>>> [00002194] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002194] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _main() >>>>>>> [000021a3] 55             push ebp [000021a4] 8bec           mov >>>>>>> ebp,esp [000021a6] 6883210000     push 00002183 ; push DDD >>>>>>> [000021ab] e843f3ffff     call 000014f3 ; call HHH1 [000021b0] >>>>>>> 83c404 add esp,+04 [000021b3] 33c0           xor eax,eax [000021b5] >>>>>>> 5d pop ebp [000021b6] c3             ret Size in bytes:(0020) >>>>>>> [000021b6] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly address >>>>>>>  address   data      code       language ========  ======== >>>>>>>  ========  ========== ============= >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [000021a3][0010382d][00000000] 55         push ebp      ; main() >>>>>>> [000021a4][0010382d][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; main() >>>>>>> [000021a6][00103829][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; push DDD >>>>>>> [000021ab][00103825][000021b0] e843f3ffff call 000014f3 ; call HHH1 >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038d1 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation >>>>>>> Execution Trace Stored at:1138d9 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [00002183][001138c9][001138cd] 55         push ebp      ; DDD of >>>>>>> HHH1 [00002184][001138c9][001138cd] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; DDD >>>>>>> of HHH1 [00002186][001138c5][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 ; >>>>>>> push DDD [0000218b][001138c1][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ; >>>>>>> call HHH >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New slave_stack at:14e2f9 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation >>>>>>> Execution Trace Stored at:15e301 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [00002183][0015e2f1][0015e2f5] 55         push ebp      ; DDD of >>>>>>> HHH[0] [00002184][0015e2f1][0015e2f5] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; >>>>>>> DDD of HHH[0] [00002186][0015e2ed][00002183] 6883210000 push >>>>>>> 00002183 ; >>>>>>> push DDD [0000218b][0015e2e9][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ; >>>>>>> call HHH >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New slave_stack at:198d21  DDD emulated by HHH *This is the >>>>>>> beginning of the divergence of the behavior* >>>>>>> *HHH is emulating itself emulating DDD, HHH1 never does that* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [00002183][001a8d19][001a8d1d] 55         push ebp      ; DDD of >>>>>>> HHH[1] [00002184][001a8d19][001a8d1d] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; >>>>>>> DDD of HHH[1] [00002186][001a8d15][00002183] 6883210000 push >>>>>>> 00002183 ; >>>>>>> push DDD [0000218b][001a8d11][00002190] e833f4ffff call 000015c3 ; >>>>>>> call HHH >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped >>>>>>> HHH returns to caller >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [00002190][001138c9][001138cd] 83c404     add esp,+04 ; DDD of HHH1 >>>>>>> [00002193][001138cd][000015a8] 5d         pop ebp     ; DDD of HHH1 >>>>>>> [00002194][001138d1][0003a980] c3         ret         ; DDD of HHH1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [000021b0][0010382d][00000000] 83c404     add esp,+04 ; main() >>>>>>> [000021b3][0010382d][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax ; main() >>>>>>> [000021b5][00103831][00000018] 5d         pop ebp     ; main() >>>>>>> [000021b6][00103835][00000000] c3         ret         ; main() >>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(352831) == 5266 Pages >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> ## 🧠 **Summary of Argument** >>>>> >>>>> **Olcott** claims: >>>>> >>>>> * That `HHH1(DDD)` and `HHH(DDD)` simulate `DDD` differently. >>>>> * The divergence starts when `HHH` recursively begins simulating >>>>> itself simulating `DDD`. >>>>> * Therefore, this behavior implies that `DDD` does not halt, and this >>>>> non- halting is correctly detected by `HHH`. >>>>> >>>>> **Damon** replies: >>>>> >>>>> * The simulation is invalid unless it correctly simulates the machine >>>>> behavior, specifically how the `CALL` instruction should behave. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========