Re: III correctly emulated by EEE ---

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.
That means you are just lying when you say the below is the finite string input given to EEE, as you just admitted that it uses more.
(It also shows your stupidity to say it stored the entire file in "a single location of global memory", as a signle location can hold only one value, even more evidence of you not knowing what you are talking about.
And the use of "global memory" as you have admitted, breaks the definition of your decider, which you have admitted needs to be a pure function, and thus can't use "global memory".

 _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]
 There are no freaking variations merely III repeating
its first four instructions a finite number of times.
 

Nope. The ONLY correct emulation shows goig from 0000217A with a call to EEE at 000015d2, and after that the Program Counter for this emulation will NEVER get back to any of the addresses between 00002172 to 0000217a.
IT is only the variable within EEE that represents the address it is emulation that goes back there, so your statement is just a lie.
And, since EEE did look at those locations in memory, every EEE got a DIFFERENT input, as the actual input is much larger than you deceptively claim, as it DOES contain all the memory locations looked at, which include the code for EEE, and thus every time you changed EEE, you canged the ACTUAL finite string that represents the input, and thus you just LIE when you say they all are the "same" III
Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a pathological liar that is commiting deliberate FRAUD by trying to redefine the core terms of the system you are working in.
Try to disprove ANY of these statement, with a quoted reliable source to back your reasoning.
You are just stuck in your world of make-beleive and you are totally ignorant of what you are actually talking about in the actual world of logic.