Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- key error in all the proofs --- Mike

On 8/12/24 5:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/12/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/12/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/12/2024 1:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:

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

YOU don't understand the rules of the x86 code, or don't care if you are wrong, as NOTHING in the x86 language allows the leaving of the direct exectuion thread and into showing the code the simulator being simulated is simulating. The ONLY correct answer is showing it doing the simulating.
>

>
I showed the first four lines of this code
highlighted in red and you ignored it.
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

>
First a few comments about this file.
>
It has clearlly changed over time without notice, you said you added highlighting, but it also has had content changes.
>
It really needs to be date-stamped and version controlled. I can not say if the copy I look at today is the same as I looked at the other day.
>
Second, it is NOT the trace you keep on claiming but is the trace that x86UTM makes of running main, with the trace that the levels of HHH do inserted (WITHOUT COMMENT) into the listing, making the trace that HHH generats hard to find.
>
The length of the wrong trace starts on page 38, so there are only about 160 pages of trace (the rest is an assembly listing of the program, useful to understand the trace, but not part of the trace itself) and there are only 1 to 2 lines from HHH per page, so a trace of just what HHH does would be only about 200-300 LINES long, not 200 pages, and not beyond what many people can handle, especially when you remove the cruft of having to wade through all the other junk that isn't the trace that HHH makes.
>
There are also clearly functions that are not even correctly listed in the assembly listings, nor traced, that seem to be hooks to make OS calls. That isn't totally unreasonable, but not clearly marked as such.
>
>

>
No, you ignored my comments.
>
First, that isn't a trace generated by HHH emulating DDD, but by x86UTM emulating HHH, so your claim is just a type error.
>
Then when I look at this emulation, we see that HHH *ONLY* emulates those first 4 instructions of HHH and no more,

>
That is counter factual.

>
Looking closer, I may have gotten confused by the changing file by the same name
>
I do see the simulation continuing into HHH, but ...
>
One thing I do note is that the trace sees conditional jump instructions in the trace, but your "rule" is that there can be no conditional instructions see in the full loop, so something is wrong.
>
One instruction I see is:
Page 79, simulated the JNZ 00001335 at address 000012f8
Why wasn't this counted as a conditional instruction in the trace?
(That means the recursion isn't unconditional)
>
So, mybe it is a correct partial emulation, but just ignores some of the meaning, so that conditional recursion is incorrectly considered to be infinite recursion. Perhaps you just failed to test you code to see that it correctly detects conditional jump instructions.
>
Note, examining your code, your code also VIOLATES your requirement to be a pure functikon.
>
First, in Init_Halts_HH you detect if you are the "root" decider by look to see it the stack is at the initial prefilled value, and if so make yourself the "root" and setup a trace buffer, and record that we are the "Root"
>
Then in Decides_Halting_HH you test that Root flag, and only the "Root" decider actually does halt deciding, thus the copy of HHH that DDD calls performs a DIFFERENT set of actions to the ones that the one called by main does.
>
Thus, You are proven to be a liar that you code ACTUALLY acts as a pure function. The static memory isn't just a way for the lower emulator to have its results seen by the higher emulator, but the emulators actually change from Halt Deciders to pure emulators when they are nes
>
>

>

that it doesn't simulate what happens in HHH after the jmp 000015e7 instruction, and thus you claim is still a LIE.
>

>
That is counter factual.

>
Maybe it is recording but not looking at those instructions. Why else is it ignoring the conditional instructions?
>

 I proved that your statements were counter-factual.
Instead of admitting whoops I goofed you are trying
to get away with changing the subject.

I guess you can't read.
I admitted that it goes through all the code, but doesn't seem to correctly see that there were conditional jumps that were emulated.
Thus, the emulation is IN FACT incorrect.

 The subject is ONLY HHH does correct emulate itself
emulated DDD.

And apparently not, as it seems to think that HHH has no conditional branches in its operation, when it does. Thus it at least does not "correctly determine" the behavior of this input actually correctly emulated, as it has an error in its logic.
And we still have the fact that "Correctly Emulated" for halting needs to mean Completely emulated for not reaching a final state to mean not halting.
And then you have the fact that HHH is not a pure function (because something it calls isn't) and thus even if we did determine that a seperate vesion of HHH emulationg this input that still calls the old HHH doesn't halt, if the reason it doesn't is becuase the HHH that DDD calls behaves differently due to the use of "Hidden Inputs" that just invalidates your whole arguement.
Sorry, you proof has blown up because of the exposure of your lies.

 I am about to forever give up on you.
I finally found a group of tens of thousands of
people that totally understand what I am saying.

Is the problem that I get too close to your lies.
What are you going to do about the fact that your core decider logic is CLEARLY not "a pure function" as it detects via a use of global memory if it is the root level of the decider or not, and then changes its behavior based on that fact?
LIES are LIES.

 Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer