Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 09:58:20 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <v40vec$2gqa0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3ol8s$328ec$14@i2pn2.org> <v3olkf$q9du$1@dont-email.me> <v3piaa$33gmb$1@i2pn2.org> <v3plp1$v133$2@dont-email.me> <v3qsi6$354ia$1@i2pn2.org> <v3r1pl$16gjs$1@dont-email.me> <v3r24v$354i9$4@i2pn2.org> <v3r2pb$16lke$1@dont-email.me> <v3r39a$354ia$5@i2pn2.org> <v3r3hd$1ahl1$1@dont-email.me> <v3r6mt$354i9$6@i2pn2.org> <v3r7p2$1b63v$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 08:58:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="701ca2b626bc5ff9a5c97350cec21277";
	logging-data="2648384"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/IK5yZFNO1AHHDgYzNiEc9"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OI4J/iqO/dCEEnsaEbTlBX/o/oE=
Bytes: 4657

On 2024-06-07 18:41:47 +0000, olcott said:

> 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).

The true point is that you have never shown any proof about simulation
by HH.

-- 
Mikko