Path: ...!news.misty.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:18:38 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 205
Message-ID: <385fc1f1467edc63a676d881f08f0bff52d5366c.camel@gmail.com>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3r914$354i9$7@i2pn2.org>
	 <v3r9ds$1b96e$1@dont-email.me> <v3rb52$354ia$7@i2pn2.org>
	 <v3rbaj$1bg3t$1@dont-email.me> <v3rc4m$354i9$8@i2pn2.org>
	 <v3rcgn$1bpcn$1@dont-email.me> <v3rcks$354i9$9@i2pn2.org>
	 <v3rd3r$1bsem$1@dont-email.me> <v3s5g6$36git$2@i2pn2.org>
	 <v3sc8c$1gra7$2@dont-email.me> <v3tq33$388rj$13@i2pn2.org>
	 <v3tstr$1td1o$2@dont-email.me> <v3tuqh$388ri$1@i2pn2.org>
	 <v3v0qj$22vrk$1@dont-email.me> <v3v85d$39ri5$11@i2pn2.org>
	 <v3vacl$242e9$8@dont-email.me> <v3vh9l$a5e$2@news.muc.de>
	 <v3vhvq$25ojk$2@dont-email.me> <v3vj8p$39ri6$7@i2pn2.org>
	 <v3vk9b$266aq$2@dont-email.me>
	 <8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com>
	 <v3vn5u$26d04$1@dont-email.me>
	 <400b355fb6d07340772b9308dece34b60fd6fcb4.camel@gmail.com>
	 <v3vovc$27d15$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 06:18:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a38a7976997cbd717b479f3898397b36";
	logging-data="2599715"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18LsU/g73mXYFaNkFuSUb2O"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.2 (3.50.2-1.fc39)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4e5AF2SPwvI50OpF5r26GoWSfts=
In-Reply-To: <v3vovc$27d15$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 10828

On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 15:01 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 2:43 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 14:31 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > > > > > > [ Followup-To: set ]
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > [ .... ]
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > _DD()
> > > > > > > > > [00001e12] 55=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0 push ebp
> > > > > > > > > [00001e13] 8bec=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 mov=
=C2=A0 ebp,esp
> > > > > > > > > [00001e15] 51=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0 push ecx
> > > > > > > > > [00001e16] 8b4508=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 mov=C2=A0 eax,[=
ebp+08]
> > > > > > > > > [00001e19] 50=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0 push eax=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ; push DD
> > > > > > > > > [00001e1a] 8b4d08=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 mov=C2=A0 ecx,[=
ebp+08]
> > > > > > > > > [00001e1d] 51=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0 push ecx=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ; push DD
> > > > > > > > > [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> > > > > > > > > above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> > > > > > > > > by HH and simulated in the correct order.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it?=C2=
=A0 Less than a
> > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
> > > > > > > > instructions"
> > > > > > > > simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N).=C2=
=A0 It seems that
> > > > > > > > the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met yo=
ur criterion.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > That now seems to have changed.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
> > > > > > > improve my words on the basis of reviews.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> > > > > > > stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > _DD()
> > > > > > > [00001e12] 55=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
 push ebp
> > > > > > > [00001e13] 8bec=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 mov=C2=A0=
 ebp,esp
> > > > > > > [00001e15] 51=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
 push ecx
> > > > > > > [00001e16] 8b4508=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 mov=C2=A0 eax,[ebp+=
08]
> > > > > > > [00001e19] 50=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
 push eax=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ; push DD
> > > > > > > [00001e1a] 8b4d08=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 mov=C2=A0 ecx,[ebp+=
08]
> > > > > > > [00001e1d] 51=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
 push ecx=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ; push DD
> > > > > > > [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> > > > > > > above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> > > > > > > by HH and simulated in the correct order.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
> > > > > > > of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
> > > > > > > of the above definition of correct simulation.
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
> > > > >=20
> > > > > More dishonest deflection.
> > > > > The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
> > > > > deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is corr=
ectly
> > > > > simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
> > > > > executed DD(DD).
> > > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > > The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:
> > > > IF H(D,D)=3D=3D1, THEN D(D) will return.
> > > > ELSE If H(D,D)=3D=3D0, THEN D(D) will never return.
> > > > ELSE HP is undecidable
> > > >=20
> > > > You keep solving POOH !!! and made lots of lies.
> > > >=20
> > > > Surrender to my GUR, son.
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > If people are going to be dishonest about simple things
> > > such as the actual behavior of actual x86 code where
> > > they consistently deny verified facts
> > >=20
> > > then we certainly cannot trust these people with more
> > > difficult issues that require at least some slight degree
> > > of judgment call.
> > >=20
> > > When we can show that even in the halting problem HH
> > > is only required to report on the behavior of DD correctly
> > > simulated by HH these dishonest people merely use that
> > > as another deflection point for their dishonesty.
> > >=20
> > > The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently
> > > focused one one single point until the dishonest people
> > > finally admit that they have simply ignored all the proofs
> > > for three solid years.
> > >=20
> > > On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0> On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0>>
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0>> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0>> TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0>> I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0>
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0> But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0> are correct, because I am not willing to put
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0> that effort into your worthless claim.
> > > =C2=A0=C2=A0>
> > >=20
> > > Here is the earliest version of the proof (that everyone
> > > has simply ignored for three solid years) that P correctly
> > > simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted.
> > >=20
> > > Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
> > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_un=
decidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> > > =C2=A0=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > The fact that the execution trace of P derived by the executed
> > > H and the simulated H exactly matches the machine code of P
> > > proves that each instruction of P was simulated correctly and
> > > in the correct order this conclusively proves that P is correctly
> > > simulated by both of these instances of H.
> > >=20
> > > It has proved this since 2021-09-26 and everyone has made
> > > sure to ignore this proof so that they can maintain their false
> > > assumption.
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> > > stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
> > >=20
> > > _DD()
> > > [00001e12] 55=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 push eb=
p
> > > [00001e13] 8bec=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 mov=C2=A0 ebp,esp
> > > [00001e15] 51=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 push ec=
x
> > > [00001e16] 8b4508=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 mov=C2=A0 eax,[ebp+08]
> > > [00001e19] 50=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 push ea=
x=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ; push DD
> > > [00001e1a] 8b4d08=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 mov=C2=A0 ecx,[ebp+08]
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========