Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 22:25:47 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 160 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:25:48 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="863b71206377856c10e8f571e9178830"; logging-data="2072950"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Sz2HRxzKXuDclwtl59wwA" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:0JhpmcN9FA/k7GOhaqVjB/taFj4= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8570 On 6/25/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/25/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/25/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/25/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/24 9:02 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/25/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/24/24 11:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/24/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> like what I say. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that D correctly simulated by H must >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT ONE DIFFERENCE. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Honest mistake or liar? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to >>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H1 >>>>>>>>>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is not the same behavior as >>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H >>>>>>>>>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the >>>>>>>>>>> direct executions trace? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H >>>>>>>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which isn't "Behavior of the input" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The "not happening" of something that could have happened >>>>>>>>> except that the processing was stoped is NOT behavior. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H1 --- Identical to D(D) >>>>>>>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Right, and it contains ALL of the behavior of the correct >>>>>>>>> simulation of D by H, plus more. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> H doesn't see DIFFERENT behavior, just LESS, and that differnce >>>>>>>>> isn't due to the input, but due to H. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *These are not the same behaviors* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (Assuming unlimited memory) >>>>>>>> When 1 to a googolplex of steps of D are correctly simulated by H >>>>>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) NEVER RETURNS* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Correction, 1 to a googleplex of steps if DIFFERENT Ds, each >>>>>>> paired with a DIFFERENT H, when simulated by that H, the >>>>>>> DIFFFERENT routines called by those DIFFERENT Ds to that >>>>>>> DIFFERENT H(D,D) is never simulated to an end. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _P() >>>>>> [000020e2] 55               push ebp         ; housekeeping >>>>>> [000020e3] 8bec             mov ebp,esp      ; housekeeping >>>>>> [000020e5] 51               push ecx         ; housekeeping >>>>>> [000020e6] 8b4508           mov eax,[ebp+08] ; parameter >>>>>> [000020e9] 50               push eax         ; push parameter >>>>>> [000020ea] 8b4d08           mov ecx,[ebp+08] ; parameter >>>>>> [000020ed] 51               push ecx         ; push parameter >>>>>> [000020ee] e82ff3ffff       call 00001422    ; call H(P,P) >>>>>> [000020f3] 83c408           add esp,+08 >>>>>> [000020f6] 8945fc           mov [ebp-04],eax >>>>>> [000020f9] 837dfc00         cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 >>>>>> [000020fd] 7402             jz 00002101 >>>>>> [000020ff] ebfe             jmp 000020ff >>>>>> [00002101] 8b45fc           mov eax,[ebp-04] >>>>>> [00002104] 8be5             mov esp,ebp >>>>>> [00002106] 5d               pop ebp >>>>>> [00002107] c3               ret >>>>>> Size in bytes:(0038) [00002107] >>>>>> >>>>>> The call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D >>>>>> is correctly simulated by any H that can possibly exist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless you say yes you are correct we cannot move on to >>>>>> the next point. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, the call most definitinely DOES return, but that return is >>>>> after the simulation ended. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe the real problem is that you have insufficient technical >>>> competence. >>> >>> Nope, that isn't the problem. I KNOW what I am talking about, as >>> opposed to you who can't even write a simple Turing Machine. >>> >>>> >>>>> Your problem is that, strictly, by your definition of "Correct >>>>> Simulation", >>>> >>>> The semantics of the x86 language objectively proves that I am correct. >>>> Have you been faking your technical competence? >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>>> >>>> Can you do better with this simpler example? >>>> >>>> _DDD() >>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04 >>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp >>>> [00002183] c3               ret >>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>> >>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> But the call will, just not in the simulation that your H0 does. >>> >> >> OK so we are back to you being a freaking liar trying to get >> away with contradicting the semantics of the x86 language. >> > > How does that contradictthe semantics of the x86 languge? > > If H0 is a decider, it will ALWAYS return an answer in finite time H0 is not even a decider yet. When you leap ahead you diverge from the point at hand. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer