Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:57:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <v4ck2c$1o4b4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v46na7$3ifov$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v48be9$rgsh$1@dont-email.me> <v48gh6$3kcoe$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v48jv2$se9c$1@dont-email.me> <v49dge$3kcoe$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v4a0hs$157ic$3@dont-email.me> <v4ak5o$3kcoe$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4am8r$19edk$1@dont-email.me> <v4b17k$3nf9n$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v4b48k$1f89t$4@dont-email.me> <v4c12t$3oop0$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:57:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6f170c39f5487c8533188545300f883a";
	logging-data="1839460"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+spEoRe+VMjyZ23wzcLSpy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0yfYx6jy6AZSogMOGbvJq6LPMc4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4c12t$3oop0$4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8239

On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a verified 
>>>>>>>>>>> fact is just a LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D 
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent 
>>>>>>>>>>> statement for the behavior of the direct execution of the 
>>>>>>>>>>> input as required by the Halting Problem, so you admit you 
>>>>>>>>>>> have been LYING every time you imply that it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _D()
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000cfc](01)  55                      push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000cfd](02)  8bec                    mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000cff](03)  8b4508                  mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000d02](01)  50                      push eax       ; push D
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000d03](03)  8b4d08                  mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000d06](01)  51                      push ecx       ; push D
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000d07](05)  e800feffff              call 00000b0c  ; call H
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000d0c](03)  83c408                  add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000d0f](02)  85c0                    test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000d11](02)  7404                    jz 00000d17
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000d13](02)  33c0                    xor eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000d15](02)  eb05                    jmp 00000d1c
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000d17](05)  b801000000              mov eax,00000001
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000d1c](01)  5d                      pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00000d1d](01)  c3                      ret
>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the
>>>>>>>>>>>> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine
>>>>>>>>>>>> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that*
>>>>>>>>>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior*
>>>>>>>>>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction*
>>>>>>>>>> *and simulates H simulating H*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *This H does do it*
>>>>>>>> D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D
>>>>>>>> as the above line of code requires.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code
>>>>>>>> thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly
>>>>>>>> simulated by H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return 
>>>>>>> statement?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>>
>>>>> *YOU* have verified that the directly executed D(D) will reach its 
>>>>> return statement.
>>>>
>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider
>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the
>>>> business of H.
>>>
>>> IMPOSSIBLE.
>>>
>>> Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about.
>>>
>>> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means.
>>
>> There are no finite string transformation rules
>> from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D).
>>
> 
> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, 
> that is a UTM.
> 

On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ

Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated
by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have
is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.

*Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H*
*Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H*
*Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H*

*What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H*
*What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H*
*What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H*

THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION?
THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION?
THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION?

_D()
[00000cfc](01) 55          push ebp
[00000cfd](02) 8bec        mov ebp,esp
[00000cff](03) 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d02](01) 50          push eax       ; push D
[00000d03](03) 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d06](01) 51          push ecx       ; push D
[00000d07](05) e800feffff  call 00000b0c  ; call H
[00000d0c](03) 83c408      add esp,+08
[00000d0f](02) 85c0        test eax,eax
[00000d11](02) 7404        jz 00000d17
[00000d13](02) 33c0        xor eax,eax
[00000d15](02) eb05        jmp 00000d1c
[00000d17](05) b801000000  mov eax,00000001
[00000d1c](01) 5d          pop ebp
[00000d1d](01) c3          ret
Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]


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