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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise ---
 pinned down
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:33:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3fm1e$2n53n$8@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v39agi$1jiql$1@dont-email.me>
 <v39v3h$1mtd9$5@dont-email.me> <v3b9kj$2im02$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3bale$222n5$1@dont-email.me> <v3bbs2$2im01$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3bcre$22a8n$1@dont-email.me> <v3bduk$2im01$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v3bedb$22f8h$1@dont-email.me> <v3bfbm$2im01$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v3bg39$22o6m$1@dont-email.me> <v3cbhu$2k3ld$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3clo2$28p7n$1@dont-email.me> <v3dft1$2lfup$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3dhob$2dio8$1@dont-email.me> <v3dk0d$2lfup$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v3dkf2$2e2po$1@dont-email.me> <v3dmnc$2lfup$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v3do66$2ejq2$1@dont-email.me> <v3dqka$2lfup$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v3dsev$2f6ul$1@dont-email.me> <v3dtt4$2lfup$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v3dvr3$2jgjd$1@dont-email.me> <v3e0rj$2lfup$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v3e1m6$2jmc2$1@dont-email.me> <v3f09p$2n53o$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3feqn$2rdp3$1@dont-email.me> <v3fgat$2n53n$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fhan$2rsbs$1@dont-email.me> <v3fi55$2n53o$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v3fiq7$2rsbs$5@dont-email.me> <v3flc5$2n53o$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v3flm8$2sm3s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 17:33:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2856055"; 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: <v3flm8$2sm3s$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7388
Lines: 135

On 6/1/24 1:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/1/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/1/24 12:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2024 11:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/24 12:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/1/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/1/24 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I will not discuss any other points with you until after you 
>>>>>>> either*
>>>>>>> (a) Acknowledge that DD correctly simulated by HH and ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ 
>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>      simulated by embedded_H remain stuck in recursive simulation 
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>      1 to ∞ of correct simulation or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) Correctly prove otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And until you answer the question of what that actually means, I 
>>>>>> will reply WHO CARES.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>> 00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>> 01       int DD(ptr p)
>>>>> 02       {
>>>>> 03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
>>>>> 04         if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05           HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06         return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07       }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09       int main()
>>>>> 10       {
>>>>> 11         HH(DD,DD);
>>>>> 12         return 0;
>>>>> 13       }
>>>>>
>>>>> Every DD correctly simulated by any HH of the infinite set of HH/DD
>>>>> pairs that match the above template never reaches past its own 
>>>>> simulated
>>>>> line 03 in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation of DD by HH.
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case HH is either a pure simulator that never halts or
>>>>> HH is a pure function that stops simulating after some finite number
>>>>> of simulated lines. The line count is stored in a local variable.
>>>>> The pure function HH always returns the meaningless value of 56
>>>>> after it stops simulating.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, still no answer, to teh question. 
>>>
>>> You can pretend that you don't understand something that you do indeed
>>> understand into perpetuity.
>>>
>>> The key measure of dishonestly would be that you continue to say
>>> that you don't understand yet never ever point out exactly what you
>>> don't understand and why you don't understand it.
>>>
>>>> I giuess that Mean YOU don't even know what you are asking, though 
>>>> it seems that now you are admitting that your HH doesn't actually 
>>>> ANSWER the question, so it isn't ACTUALL a decider for any function 
>>>> except the "56" mapping.
>>>>
>>>> I will repeat the question and until you answer the question of what 
>>>> that actually means, I will reply WHO CARES.
>>>>
>>>> DO you mean the simulation of the TEMPLATE DD, 
>>>
>>> *Of course I don't mean that nonsense. I mean exactly what I specified*
>>>
>>>> which means that we CAN'T simulate the call HH as we have no code 
>>>> past point to simulate, and thus your claim is just a LIE.
>>>>
>>>> Or, do you mean a given instance of HH simulating a given instance 
>>>> of DD, at which point we never have the 1 to infinte number of 
>>>> simulatons of THAT INPUT, so your claim is just a LIE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
>>> Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
>>> Every element of the infinite set of every H/D pairs...
>>>
>>> *Its not that hard when one refrains from dishonesty*
>>> We can't even say that you forgot these details from one reply
>>> to the next because the details are still in this same post.
>>>
>>
>> And every one gives a meaningless answer, 
> 
> *THEN TRY TO REFUTE THIS UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT*
> DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
> reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite
> number of steps of correct emulation.
> 

Why? I don't care about it.

As I have said, the implication of your definition of "Correct 
SImulation" means that this says NOTHING about the halting behavior of 
DD. (only not halted yet)

If you want to try to refute my arguement, go ahead. But until you do, 
you are accepting my implication, and I have no reason to even attempt 
to see if your claim is correcgt or not.

I will also point out, that you keep on dropping your requirements on 
HH, and with your as stated requirements, I have proven you wrong.

Until you have a step 1 agreed to in order to reference, you need to 
kepe all your specification=s in your statement, as you are know to take 
things out of context, so the context must be complete when stated.


> _DD()
> [00001c22] 55         push ebp
> [00001c23] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [00001c25] 51         push ecx
> [00001c26] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001c29] 50         push eax        ; push DD 1c22
> [00001c2a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001c2d] 51         push ecx        ; push DD 1c22
> [00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
> [00001c33] 83c408     add esp,+08
> [00001c36] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
> [00001c39] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [00001c3d] 7402       jz 00001c41
> [00001c3f] ebfe       jmp 00001c3f
> [00001c41] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
> [00001c44] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
> [00001c46] 5d         pop ebp
> [00001c47] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0038) [00001c47]
> 
>