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: Indirect Reference Changes the Behavior of DDD() relative to DDD
 emulated by HHH --- Deception
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 18:59:00 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <21b7283c9ab4e425dc9cbd31bdc2bc13526d3185@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <vaj1kd$2kvg9$1@dont-email.me>
 <eca21d905b57bb0b98172c573890b5c8cda91da8@i2pn2.org>
 <vakisq$302rl$3@dont-email.me> <vamjse$3d6eb$1@dont-email.me>
 <van2ni$3f6c0$1@dont-email.me> <vap9r5$3t411$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapv4l$3vumk$4@dont-email.me> <vashj9$grso$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav3iq$10jsm$4@dont-email.me> <vavc3b$11uqn$2@dont-email.me>
 <vavcf8$129qh$1@dont-email.me> <vavdv4$11uqn$6@dont-email.me>
 <vavfjq$12m8t$3@dont-email.me> <vb1gqf$1f566$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4fd0$2s0uc$2@dont-email.me>
 <b393150191c6d78fc3033efb7c2fb993914ab53e@i2pn2.org>
 <vb9kao$3r9la$1@dont-email.me> <vbbvoc$9s9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbccr8$bdtb$5@dont-email.me> <vbeifo$om7b$5@dont-email.me>
 <vbep6r$punj$3@dont-email.me> <vbh9c8$1aru4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhm9k$1c7u5$13@dont-email.me> <vbjqhu$1sj3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbkai8$1u1js$6@dont-email.me> <vbkd8b$1v535$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbndvu$2g6vo$5@dont-email.me> <vbp23h$2skjj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbpjlc$2vfau$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:59:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1595853"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbpjlc$2vfau$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 9258
Lines: 197

On 9/10/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/10/2024 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-09 18:15:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/8/2024 9:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-08 13:58:32 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/8/2024 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-07 14:00:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/7/2024 5:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 06.sep.2024 om 13:31 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 05.sep.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH MUST ABORT AFTER SOME FIXED NUMBER OF RECURSIVE EMULATIONS
>>>>>>>>>>> AND THE OUTERMOST HHH ALWAYS SEE ONE MORE THAN THE NEXT INNER 
>>>>>>>>>>> ONE.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And the outer one, when aborting after two cycles , misses the 
>>>>>>>>>> behaviour of the inner one in the next cycle, where the inner 
>>>>>>>>>> one would see the 'special condition', abort, return to DDD, 
>>>>>>>>>> which would halt as well.
>>>>>>>>>> That HHH misses the last part of the behaviour of the program, 
>>>>>>>>>> does not change the fact that this is the behaviour that was 
>>>>>>>>>> coded in the program
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If we have an infinite chain of people each waiting for
>>>>>>>>>>> the next one down the line to do something then that thing
>>>>>>>>>>> is never done.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The infinite chain exists only in your dream. In fact there 
>>>>>>>>>> are only two recursions, so never more that a chain of three 
>>>>>>>>>> HHH in the simulation.
>>>>>>>>>> HHH is incorrect in assuming the there is an infinite chain, 
>>>>>>>>>> but this incorrect assumption makes that it aborts and halts. 
>>>>>>>>>> This applies both to the simulating and the simulated HHH.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The way it is encoded now there are only two recursions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If we encode it as you suggest the outermost directly
>>>>>>>>> executed HHH would wait for the first emulated HHH which
>>>>>>>>> would wait for the second which would wait for third
>>>>>>>>> on and on...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is olcott's problem with English?
>>>>>>>> If one way is incorrect, he thinks that it suggests that another 
>>>>>>>> way must be correct.
>>>>>>>> I never suggested to change HHH, because there is *no* correct 
>>>>>>>> way to do it. Every HHH that simulates itself is incorrect. No 
>>>>>>>> matter what clever code it includes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You must be a brain dead moron.
>>>>>>> As long as HHH emulates the sequence of instructions
>>>>>>> it was provided then HHH is correct even if it catches
>>>>>>> your computer on fire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is right. The error only occurs when HHH no longer emulates the
>>>>>> sequence of instructions it was provided.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>
>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above refers to determining that *its input D*
>>>>> "specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations"
>>>>> When people change this to a *non-input D* they are
>>>>> trying to get away with deception.
>>>>
>>>> We know except the only "people" that do so is you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>> Try to show all of the details of how DDD emulated
>>> by HHH ever reaches machine address  00002183
>>
>> It is your emulator so you need to show what needs be shown.
> 
> I am not making the false claim.
> My claim in that 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a
> are emulated by the first executed emulator HHH then
> HHH emulates itself emulating DDD and we get
> 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a...

But that isn't what you are asked to do by the problem, or what you 
solution claims.

You are claiming to be doing a correct x86 emultion of the program given 
as the input, and thus you need to show HOW that second HHH did its 
emulation, not the results of the emulation.

You are just making a MAJOR category error, and making yourself in to a 
LIAR.


> 
> I proved this claim by showing the execution trace
> https://www.liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD).pdf

Which just proves that you aren't doing what you claim, perhaps becuase 
ypu are too stupid to know what it is that you are claiming to do.

> 
> Disagreeing with verified facts seems to be a psychotic
> break from reality to me. It is up to you to show otherwise.

No, the verified facts are that the ACTUAL correct emulation reaches the 
end.

It is just your lies and fabircations that show otherwise.

> 
>> For others it is sufficient to determine what HHH returns and
>> whether DDD halts and compare the two.
>>
> 
> That is the fallacy of equivocation error.

No, YOU are making the equivocation error, and that is proving that you 
are nothing but a LIAR.

> 
> The emulated HHH cannot possibly return and you
> are trying to get away with lying about it by
> changing to subject to a different HHH instance.

No, the emulated HHH most certainly returns, just only after the HHH 
that is emulating it gives up.

YOU make the "equivocation" error of confounding the actual behavior of 
the thing talked about (the program DDD or HHH) and the behavior of a 
partial emulation of it.

Sorry, you are just proved to be an idiot.

> 
>>> Sequences of machine addressed when DDD is emulated by HHH
>>> 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a
>>> which calls an emulated HHH(DDD).
>>>
>>> What are the next instructions of DDD emulated by the emulated HHH ?
>>
>> Here, too, it is your problem to show what needs be shown.
>> For the rest of us it is sufficient to note what you have not proven.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========