Path: ...!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 17:12:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <v400l8$287qb$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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>
 <v3vnfo$26d04$2@dont-email.me> <v3vso9$27qug$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 00:12:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99ea1b6838dd1404bad406fc122dbf0f";
	logging-data="2367307"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jmiNostI76RQlr60IW2Gr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O3iyyLE/r8EvyoSO/1OCtIeSY3Y=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3vso9$27qug$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6484

On 6/7/2024 4:06 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 07/06/2024 à 21:36, olcott a écrit :
>> 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.
> 
> There is NO definition of "correct simulation" above.
> 

SHOULD IO REPEAT THIS FIFTY TIMES SO THAT YOU NOTICE THAT I SAID IT AT 
LEAST ONCE?

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.


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