On 3/23/25 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/23/25 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/23/25 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:

_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 EEE(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]

When finite integer N instructions of the above x86
machine language DD are emulated by each x86 emulator
EEE[N] at machine address [000015c3] according to the
semantics of the x86 language no DD ever reaches its own >>>>>>>>>>> "ret" instruction at machine address [00002155] and
terminates normally.

Your can't emulate the above code for N > 4, as you get into >>>>>>>>>> undefine memory.

I have already addressed this objection dozens of times.

No you haven't. You have given several different LIES about it. >>>>>>>>
As I have pointed out, if you don't include Halt7.c as part of >>>>>>>> the definition, then you can't do it as you are looking at
undefined memory.

Your lack of technical competence is showing.
(1) We are talking about a hypothetical infinite
set of pure x86 emulators that have no decider code.

(2) The memory space of x86 machine code is not
in the C source file, it is in the object file.

Then your "input" isn't the C source files, but the memory, and
ALL of it, and thus in your (1), each member of the set got a
different input (as reference memory changed) and none of those
apply to your case with HHH.

You just continue to prove that you don't understand the meaning
of the terms you are using, or you are intentionally hiding your
fradulant change of meaning of those terms.

Command line arguments:
x86utm Halt7.obj > Halt7out.txt

All of the x86 functions remain at their same fixed
offset from the beginning of Halt7.obj

So?

You still need to make the decision, is Halt7.c / Halt7.obj part of
the INPUT to the decider, and thus either you can't change the code
in it, or you need to consider each version a different input, or

_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]

In other words an infinite set of pure x86 emulators
with each one stored at machine address 000015d2
that can be called from the above fixed finite string
of machine code IS UTTERLY BEYOND ANYTHING THAT YOU
CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE.

I don't buy it. You are  neither that stupid nor
that ignorant.

You can't have two different programs in one memory location at the
same time.

CUT-AND-PASTE FAILED

I will dumb it down for you.
Try to come up with one x86 emulator EEE at machine
address 000015d2 that emulates III according to the
semantics of the x86 language and this emulated III
reaches its own machine address 00002183.

No, STRAWMAN ERROR. You are just having a logic failure.

No, you are showing yourself to be dumb.

You can't redefine what "Correct Emulation" means without loosing the
ability to use it to answer the problem, as we can only look as
emulations instead of the original machine BECAUSE the are defined to be
the same.

The big problem with your example is that the fact that there doesn't
exist an EEE that can correct emulate this input to it final state, is
that all this proves is that this sort of emulator can never "prove"
that this sort of input is halting.

We also have the fact that none of the inputs you are looking at
actually match the inputs given to your deciders, because, as been
shown, the code at 000015d2 must be included in the input, or your
decider fails to be the "pure function" you agree it must be.

And if it is, it won't match the code of the decider, since EEE is not
the same program as HHH.

So, all you have done is proven that your logic is based on lies, and on creating strawmen with those lies.

Your credibility is now in that lake of fire that you will be joining in
the not to distant future. Sorry, but that is the facts unless you make
a radical change in your behavior, and admit your error.

But then, it seems you are just too ignorant to be able to see your
error, because you brainwashed yourself into being ignorant out of a
fear of being brainwashed by the truth.

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

Am Mon, 24 Mar 2025 09:05:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/24/2025 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/23/25 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/23/25 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/23/25 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:

When finite integer N instructions of the above x86 machine >>>>>>>>>>>>> language DD are emulated by each x86 emulator EEE[N] at >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address [000015c3] according to the semantics of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> x86 language no DD ever reaches its own "ret" instruction at >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine address [00002155] and terminates normally.

Your can't emulate the above code for N > 4, as you get into >>>>>>>>>>>> undefine memory.

I have already addressed this objection dozens of times. >>>>>>>>>>>

No you haven't. You have given several different LIES about it. >>>>>>>>>> As I have pointed out, if you don't include Halt7.c as part of >>>>>>>>>> the definition, then you can't do it as you are looking at >>>>>>>>>> undefined memory.

Your lack of technical competence is showing.
(1) We are talking about a hypothetical infinite set of pure x86 >>>>>>>>> emulators that have no decider code.
(2) The memory space of x86 machine code is not in the C source >>>>>>>>> file, it is in the object file.

Then your "input" isn't the C source files, but the memory, and >>>>>>>> ALL of it, and thus in your (1), each member of the set got a
different input (as reference memory changed) and none of those >>>>>>>> apply to your case with HHH.
You just continue to prove that you don't understand the meaning >>>>>>>> of the terms you are using, or you are intentionally hiding your >>>>>>>> fradulant change of meaning of those terms.

Command line arguments:
x86utm Halt7.obj > Halt7out.txt
All of the x86 functions remain at their same fixed offset from
the beginning of Halt7.obj

So?
You still need to make the decision, is Halt7.c / Halt7.obj part of >>>>>> the INPUT to the decider, and thus either you can't change the code >>>>>> in it, or you need to consider each version a different input, or

In other words an infinite set of pure x86 emulators with each one
stored at machine address 000015d2 that can be called from the above >>>>> fixed finite string of machine code IS UTTERLY BEYOND ANYTHING THAT
YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE.
I don't buy it. You are  neither that stupid nor that ignorant.

You can't have two different programs in one memory location at the
same time.

CUT-AND-PASTE FAILED
I will dumb it down for you.
Try to come up with one x86 emulator EEE at machine address 000015d2
that emulates III according to the semantics of the x86 language and
this emulated III reaches its own machine address 00002183.

No, STRAWMAN ERROR. You are just having a logic failure.
No, you are showing yourself to be dumb.
You can't redefine what "Correct Emulation" means without loosing the
ability to use it to answer the problem, as we can only look as
emulations instead of the original machine BECAUSE the are defined to
be the same.
The big problem with your example is that the fact that there doesn't
exist an EEE that can correct emulate this input to it final state, is
that all this proves is that this sort of emulator can never "prove"
that this sort of input is halting.

It only takes III calling EEE twice in sequence with no conditional
branch instructions between 00002172 and 0000217a to prove that III
specifies not haling behavior.

But there is a conditional branch. Or does the simulator abort (or not) unconditionally?

We also have the fact that none of the inputs you are looking at
actually match the inputs given to your deciders, because, as been
shown, the code at 000015d2 must be included in the input, or your
decider fails to be the "pure function" you agree it must be.
And if it is, it won't match the code of the decider, since EEE is not
the same program as HHH.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.

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

On 3/24/25 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/24/2025 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/23/25 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/23/25 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/23/25 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 2:00 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:

_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 EEE(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]

When finite integer N instructions of the above x86
machine language DD are emulated by each x86 emulator >>>>>>>>>>>>> EEE[N] at machine address [000015c3] according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language no DD ever reaches its own >>>>>>>>>>>>> "ret" instruction at machine address [00002155] and
terminates normally.

Your can't emulate the above code for N > 4, as you get into >>>>>>>>>>>> undefine memory.

I have already addressed this objection dozens of times. >>>>>>>>>>>

No you haven't. You have given several different LIES about it. >>>>>>>>>>
As I have pointed out, if you don't include Halt7.c as part of >>>>>>>>>> the definition, then you can't do it as you are looking at >>>>>>>>>> undefined memory.

Your lack of technical competence is showing.
(1) We are talking about a hypothetical infinite
set of pure x86 emulators that have no decider code.

(2) The memory space of x86 machine code is not
in the C source file, it is in the object file.

Then your "input" isn't the C source files, but the memory, and >>>>>>>> ALL of it, and thus in your (1), each member of the set got a
different input (as reference memory changed) and none of those >>>>>>>> apply to your case with HHH.

You just continue to prove that you don't understand the meaning >>>>>>>> of the terms you are using, or you are intentionally hiding your >>>>>>>> fradulant change of meaning of those terms.

Command line arguments:
x86utm Halt7.obj > Halt7out.txt

All of the x86 functions remain at their same fixed
offset from the beginning of Halt7.obj

So?

You still need to make the decision, is Halt7.c / Halt7.obj part
of the INPUT to the decider, and thus either you can't change the
code in it, or you need to consider each version a different
input, or

_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]

In other words an infinite set of pure x86 emulators
with each one stored at machine address 000015d2
that can be called from the above fixed finite string
of machine code IS UTTERLY BEYOND ANYTHING THAT YOU
CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE.

I don't buy it. You are  neither that stupid nor
that ignorant.

You can't have two different programs in one memory location at the
same time.

CUT-AND-PASTE FAILED

I will dumb it down for you.
Try to come up with one x86 emulator EEE at machine
address 000015d2 that emulates III according to the
semantics of the x86 language and this emulated III
reaches its own machine address 00002183.

No, STRAWMAN ERROR. You are just having a logic failure.

No, you are showing yourself to be dumb.

You can't redefine what "Correct Emulation" means

That is what you are trying to get away with.
"according to the semantics of the x86 language"
specifies what correct emulation means.

Right, and that is EXACTLY as the CPU will execute it, and doesn't allow
for "aborting" the "correct emulation".

YOU are the one trying to redefine it.

Can YOU quote a line in the documentation that allows for that?

Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of CORRECT (or TRUTH,
or LOGIC for that matter). And you demonstrate this every time you post.

Sorry, you have sunk your reputation to the bottom of that lake of fire,
and will be joining it soon.

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