Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH

On 7/1/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 3:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:20 schreef olcott:

>
_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
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>

>
It cannot possibly return, because HHH aborts itself one cycle too early, showing that the emulation is incorrect. If that is over your head, try to learn how x86 instructions work.

>
_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
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>
>

>
CAN'T BE.
>
A "Correct Emulation" is one that produces the same result as the program at the input.
>

>
Which can only possibly occur be disregarding the semantics
of the x86 language. Liars would do that ignoramuses would do
that. Everyone with the equivalent of a BSCS would know that
what I said is true.
>
>

>
Why do you say that? That is EXACTLY the definition of Correct Emulation.

>
>
WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.

>
And denying definitions is just lying.

>
It may seem that way when you don't bother to pay
attention that this definition is contradicted
by verified facts.

>
WHAT "Verified facts".
>
THe fact that DDD will halt since your HHH(DDD) retuns?
>

>
Indoctrination will cause this. The only cure is
correct reasoning by assuming that everything that
anyone ever told you about anything is possibly
false until conclusively proven otherwise.

>
Nope, but failure to follow the defined rules gets you kick out of the club.
>

>
If everyone always did this then Nazi propaganda
could not possibly have any chance of success.

>
But THEY Lied, and to could be shown so,
>
Just like your statements.
>

>

>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
so that itself can terminate normally.
>
SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT
SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT
SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT
>

>
No, DDD does halt if HHH is a decider and HHH(DDD) returns.
>

>
That is the same nutty bullshit as Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
theorem. If there are no truth preserving operations in PA to
either G or ~G then G has no truthmaker in PA making G not a
truth-bearer in PA.

>
But there ARE a set of truth preserving operations in PA to show G, it is just that it takes an infinite number of them, so they don't constitute a proof.
>

 Diagonalization conclusively proves otherwise and you know it.
Maybe the issue is that you are fundamentally a liar.
 

How?
I call your bluff, show your "cards" or FOLD.
(My guess is you will just ignore this as the multitude of claims you find untenable to continue to talk about because your lie was revealed)
This isn't a problem for "Diagonalization" and it seems you are just trying to use a fancy word to make a claim.
That just shows you are just being dishonest.
Remember the question you are taking about.
G is the proposition that there does not exist any number g (from the natural numbers) such that it satisfies the particular primative recursive relationship that Godel developed in the meta-theory of PA, based on the enumeration of the primative truth bearers of PA.
That no number g can exist, is testable in countably infinite times, since by the nature of the PRR each number's failure to meet the relation ship is decidable in a finite number of steps, so we just need to test all the natural numbers, which is an infinite, but countable, task.
That no natural number g will satisfy that relationship can be shown in the meta-theory (but not PA) because we understand from the meta-theory that any number g that satisfies the relationship is an encoding of the proof that no number g meets the requreiment, so if a number g existed, then G is false, but we have a proof that no such number exists.
Thus, we can prove in the meta-theory that no natural number exists, and that fact is transferable to PA, since it doesn't have any meta-facts in it.
So, TRY to show that we can't test every natural number by Diagonalization, that just isn't the sort of thing it shows.