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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise ---
 pinned down
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:44:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 139
Message-ID: <v3fmlc$2sogn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$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>
 <v3fm1e$2n53n$8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 19:44:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5617c6a52e82e3edb2307f1199229213";
	logging-data="3039767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hXuSs3/giRzHe/RQ0zpUk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lo1XhdZYtBtE742DkBvUkugetME=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3fm1e$2n53n$8@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7637

On 6/1/2024 12:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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)
> 

*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
*or infinite* number of steps of correct emulation.

When I say it that way you claim to be confused and what I do
not say it that way you claim what I say is incomplete proof.

>> _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]
>>
>>
> 

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