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 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: References: 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: 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