XPost: sci.logic

On 7/9/24 2:09 AM, Barb Knox wrote:

On 04/07/2024 13:53, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/3/2024 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 8:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/3/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 2:20 PM, olcott wrote:

_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret

[...]

Can someone please explain to me why a discussion of the Halting Problem
is using Intel assembly laguage?

Because Peter doesn't understand how Turing Machines work and can't get
his tiny brain wrapped around them.

Also, since they only allow computation to be built, he can't use his
tricks to build non-computations that try to show his lies.

Also, it is complected enough, that he can just try to (falsely) claim
that the otehr person is just not understanding how they work, but of
course, the argument can't actually be stated in x86 behavior terms, as
he need to argue about the call to the decider being just the equivalent
to doing a new level of emulation, but there is no instruction that does
that. And his lie is that HHH is "just an emulator" but also can make a decision to stop, but still acts just like an emulator.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/9/24 10:31 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/9/2024 1:48 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-09 06:09:02 +0000, Barb Knox said:

On 04/07/2024 13:53, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/3/2024 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 8:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/3/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 2:20 PM, olcott wrote:

_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret

[...]

Can someone please explain to me why a discussion of the Halting
Problem is using Intel assembly laguage?

For some people the both Halting Problem and Intel assembly language
are a litte mysterious. Therefore they may think they are related.

The x86utm operating system is a proxy for a UTM and uses C
functions as proxies for Turing Machines and the x86 language
as a proxy for the Turing Machine description language.

This provides the means to make every single detail of the
halting problem 100% concrete thus totally eliminating any
false assumptions.

Except that since you don't understand what a Turing Machine actually is
or how they work, your system isn't actually comparable to a two machine system.

Thus, your whole argument is based on false assumptions.

You just are showing you utter ignorance of what you are talking about.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/10/24 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-09 14:31:17 +0000, olcott said:

The x86utm operating system is a proxy for a UTM and uses C
functions as proxies for Turing Machines and the x86 language
as a proxy for the Turing Machine description language.

The C language and all versions of x86 instruction set are so complcated
that it is harder to prove anything about them.

*C is about the simplest full programming language that exists*
Once you understands sequence, selection, iteration and
function calls you know the essence of the whole language.

This provides the means to make every single detail of the
halting problem 100% concrete thus totally eliminating any
false assumptions.

That provides the means to introduce false assumptions without making
them
too obvious.

It is impossible to have any meaningful conversation about
programming with someone that knows nothing about this.

All that you need to understand is that the first
four instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH
do some housekeeping and then call HHH(DDD) with
no conditional branch escape from endless repetition.

Except that the call means the emulation goes into HHH where there ARE condition instructions.

You just LIE about what "x86 emulation" means, likely because you just
don't understand how computers actually work.

You can't replace the call HHH with an unconditional emulation like you
are trying, first because that isn't a correct x86 emulation as that
isn't what the call instruction would do. And, even if you are doing
just a "functional" simulation, you can't because HHH is NOT defined as
an unconditional emulator, but a decider that does CONDITIONAL
emulation, and the interjects the conditions that you said were not there.

_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]

*The C code says this even more simply*
void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
}

Right, so if HHH(DDD) Returns, that function will return.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)