Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 14:36:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <v3vnfo$26d04$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3vn11$39ri5$20@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:36:24 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38a6c8611b5b06dec5d677dcd047c039";
	logging-data="2307076"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/slp/Xckv9A8bn7MfFcK40"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:n63LBnHb6OHT1NjsZBBZ45KjMyo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3vn11$39ri5$20@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5779

On 6/7/2024 2:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/24 2:41 PM, 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 ]
>>>>>
>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>
>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>> [00001e12] 55         push ebp
>>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00001e15] 51         push ecx
>>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
>>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>> [00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
>>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it?  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).  It seems 
>>>>> that
>>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your 
>>>>> criterion.
>>>>>
>>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>>
>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>
>>>> _DD()
>>>> [00001e12] 55         push ebp
>>>> [00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
>>>> [00001e15] 51         push ecx
>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, 
>>
>> 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 correctly
>> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
>> executed DD(DD).
>>
> 
> And thus, your idea of "Correct Simulation" fails to meet the 
> fundamental definition of the Correct Simulaiton of the machine.
> 

Liar Liar pants on fire. I truly hope that this does not send you
to Hell. Maybe are are in one of those groups that believes salvation
can never be lost no matter what one's future behavior is.

I myself would not risk that.

Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.

_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH

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.

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.



-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer