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: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 19:18:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b383987cb90eaf4cf1b169b190166b2fba6b5ad6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org>
 <v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me>
 <f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org>
 <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me>
 <178edf6a7c5329df35a9af6852ecbd41c0948ea1@i2pn2.org>
 <v629mp$1s632$3@dont-email.me>
 <168858894febbaa529d1704ea864bbe15cb8f635@i2pn2.org>
 <v62bgv$1s632$6@dont-email.me>
 <211a07c98d1fc183ed3e6c079ec1e883dd45f1cc@i2pn2.org>
 <v62f92$20moo$3@dont-email.me>
 <623debd817e63a256100bb15fed3af8d4fb969fe@i2pn2.org>
 <v62hc7$20moo$6@dont-email.me>
 <e3c734b6a1ce3386210f7700bf03d183334d4d55@i2pn2.org>
 <v63jkc$26loi$7@dont-email.me>
 <0600a243a3bb843ec505712dc7746d41e0ca66dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v63n8u$27f1a$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 23:18:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2057085"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v63n8u$27f1a$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6108
Lines: 88

On 7/3/24 10:29 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not
>>>>>>>>>>>> give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to
>>>>>>>> the final end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are
>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately loop
>>>>>> in the emulation.
>>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.
>>>> Why do they get to lie?
>> Open question.
>>
>>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial
>>>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself a
>>>>>> fully correct emulator.
>>>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is an
>>>>> incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?
>>>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and truth is
>>>> the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
>>>>
>>> Why do you keep lying about this?
>>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.
>> If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag
>> or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition. <-
>> Which it therefore isn’t.
>>
> 
> _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]
> 
> *This is the repeating state*
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
> [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)

And this is an incorrect emulation (especially by youyr definiton of 
being by the semantics of the x86 language that doesn't recognize a call 
to HHH as a call to an emulator (of any type) but just the call to a 
function that has x86 instructions.

And the state isn't repeating, as it is at a different level of simulation.

And if you remove your requirement that HHH be an x86 based emulator, 
but is just a generic functional emulation, then since HHH is a 
CONDITIONAL emulator (as proven by its decision to abort at the bottom) 
then when it trying to show the emulation that it is emulating, to be 
correct, it needs to not that conditionality at every instruction,l and 
that shows that the emulation is NOT provable to be infinite, as there 
are excape points in the emulation where the machine it is emulating 
might choose to stop, so it could at a later stage,

> New slave_stack at:14e2ec
> [00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
> 

So, you are just proven to be a ignorant liar.