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: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 19:00:49 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v403f2$39ri6$16@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@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>
 <8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com>
 <v3vn5u$26d04$1@dont-email.me> <v3vont$a5e$3@news.muc.de>
 <v3vp3j$27d15$2@dont-email.me> <v3vpqe$a5e$4@news.muc.de>
 <v4003n$287qb$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 23:00:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468870"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v4003n$287qb$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3704
Lines: 60

On 6/7/24 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 3:16 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 2:57 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>> If people are going to be dishonest about simple things such as the
>>>>> actual behavior of actual x86 code where they consistently deny
>>>>> verified facts ....
>>
>>>> You should stop swearing.  "Verified facts" has a meaning,
>>
>>> Everyone knows that the following is a verified fact and
>>> they dishonestly deflect.
>>
>> That is untrue.  There is at least one person who doesn't know "it's a
>> verified fact" (me).
>>
> 
> I should have said more accurately that everyone that understands
> this knows it is a verified fact.

And that statement is just a lie, as your claim has not be "verified" by 
anyone but your own claims.

> 
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.

And why do we care?

> 
> _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 your H isn't a Halt Decider, as a Halt Decider 
MUST report on the behavior of the directly executed machine described 
by its input, in this case DD(DD)

That, or we can say that your definition of "Correct Simulation" is in 
conflict with the requirements on HH (except that the actual problem 
never limits to "by the decider" even when we expand it to include the 
concept of simulation.