Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 14:33:39 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4nb63$61la$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4j0h2$39gh7$3@dont-email.me> <v4k0sr$3f4m3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4k44j$3fmth$1@dont-email.me> <v4m5gj$3v41v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4mmnp$1qt6$2@dont-email.me> <v4ms37$5nh5$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4mtif$3cbf$1@dont-email.me> <v4muph$1sav$1@news.muc.de>
 <v4n8ac$5d22$1@dont-email.me> <v4n9ip$61l9$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v4n9rb$5d22$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 18:33:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="198314"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4n9rb$5d22$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5545
Lines: 116

On 6/16/24 2:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/16/2024 1:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/16/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/16/2024 10:02 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/16/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:44:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 2:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whenever a decider is run it answers the question it is made to 
>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>> Not necessarily. Just because everyone falsely assumes that D 
>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>> simulated by H must have the same behavior as the directly 
>>>>>>> executed D(D)
>>>>>>> does not make this false assumption true.
>>>>
>>>>>> You still need to explain how you can call a simulation that 
>>>>>> differs from
>>>>>> the behaviour of its input "correct".
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, you do.
>>>>
>>>>> I have proven it many times and this proof is simply over
>>>>> everyone's heads.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense!  How about, instead of "proving", actually explaining?  If a
>>>> simulation differs from its original, it's not a simulation; it's 
>>>> just a
>>>> random program.
>>>>
>>>>> When I ask what your C programming skill level is, this *is not* a
>>>>> rhetorical question.
>>>>
>>>> The question has nothing to do with C programming.
>>>>
>>>
>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>>> int H(ptr P, ptr I);
>>>
>>> int D(int (*x)())
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Unless I make every single detail 100% explicit false
>>> assumptions always slip though the cracks. The ONLY way
>>> to make EVERY SINGLE DETAIL 100% EXPLICIT is the x86
>>> programming language.
>>>
>>> There cannot possibly be any H that correctly emulates
>>> the x86 machine code of D according to the semantics
>>> of the x86 programming language such that the emulated
>>> D ever reaches its own emulated final state at machine
>>> address [00001f58].
>>>
>>
>> Which is just a strawman, as the requirement on H is NOT to answer 
>> about "D correctly simulated by H" but about "the program represented 
>> by the input directly executed", or equivalently, simulated by an 
>> actual UTM, which is a simulator that NEVER stops until it reaches a 
>> final state.
>>
> 
> This is simply over-your-head.
> I am very glad of that because the alternative would
> possibly condemn your soul to Hell.

Whats over my head? That the definition of a Halt Decider beihg that it 
decides on the behavior of the program represented by the input halting 
when run?

That seems beyound YOUR understanding, so you just keep on lying about it.

Since you don't seem to actually believe in Hell, why should you care, 
after all, "Hell" isn't in the parts about "God's Love" which is the 
only parts you will accept.

Now, the fact that he says that for those who reject his words, there 
will be a judgement, you better be pretty sure you can ignore those 
other parts.

> 
>> For this input, D(D), since H(D,D) returns 0, D(D) will Halt, so H is 
>> just wrong by definition, and you by the attempt to use a strawman.
>>
>>> _D()
>>> [00001f33] 55         push ebp
>>> [00001f34] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>> [00001f36] 51         push ecx
>>> [00001f37] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001f3a] 50         push eax        ; push D
>>> [00001f3b] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00001f3e] 51         push ecx        ; push D
>>> [00001f3f] e87ff7ffff call 000016c3   ; call H(D,D)
>>> [00001f44] 83c408     add esp,+08
>>> [00001f47] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
>>> [00001f4a] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>> [00001f4e] 7402       jz 00001f52
>>> [00001f50] ebfe       jmp 00001f50
>>> [00001f52] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>> [00001f55] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
>>> [00001f57] 5d         pop ebp
>>> [00001f58] c3         ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0038) [00001f58]
>>>
>>> Once the above is understood (people quit denying verified facts).
>>> thenn (then and only then) I can show how this applies to Turing
>>> machines.
>>>
>>
>> No, YOU are the one denying DEFINED FACTS.
>