Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 18:57:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <v38fe0$1bndb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de>
 <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38eq4$2foi0$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 01:57:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a722b73a14c6c7bef786c05822a9348";
	logging-data="1433003"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/L7FlDndDnmqLY9QZcSyRV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ulqTOL+na8Tkk4pcFflaep7E4NI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v38eq4$2foi0$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3964

On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/29/24 2:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/29/2024 1:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>>>
>>>> How about a bit of respect?  Mike specifically asked you not to cite 
>>>> his
>>>> name as a back up for your points.  Why do you keep doing it?
>>>
>>> He does it to try to rope more people in.  It's the same ploy as
>>> insulting people by name.  It's hard to ignore being maligned in public
>>> by a fool.
>>>
>>
>> *Thanks for validating my simplified encoding of the Linz*
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> I really did believe that Ben Bacarisse was lying when I said it.
>>
>> At the time I was talking about the easily verified fact of the actual
>> execution trace of fully operational code and everyone was denying the
>> easily verified facts.
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>> 00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>> 01       int D(ptr p)
>> 02       {
>> 03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>> 04         if (Halt_Status)
>> 05           HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06         return Halt_Status;
>> 07       }
>> 08
>> 09       int main()
>> 10       {
>> 11         H(D,D);
>> 12         return 0;
>> 13       }
>>
>> It turns out that two dozen people are easily proven wrong when
>> they claimed that the correct simulation of the input to H(D,D)
>> is the behavior of int main() { D(D); }
>>
> 
> How is that?
> 
> 
>> When D is correctly simulated by H using an x86 emulator the only
>> way that the emulated D can reach its own emulated final state
>> at line 06 and halt is
>> (a) The x86 machine code of D is emulated incorrectly
>> (b) The x86 machine code of D is emulated in the wrong order
>>
> 
> Which isn't a "Correct Simulation" by the definition that allow the 
> relating of a "Simulation" to the behavior of an input.
> 

Right the execution trace of D simulated by pure function H using
an x86 emulator must show that D cannot possibly reach its own
simulated final state and halt or the simulation of the machine
language of D is incorrect or in the wrong order.

*FULLY OPERATIONAL CODE DOES SHOW THIS*

I may not look at any of you other replies until after this
one is fully resolved.

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