Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:41:14 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 235
Message-ID: <v41jhb$2jt63$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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>
 <8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com>
 <v3vn5u$26d04$1@dont-email.me>
 <400b355fb6d07340772b9308dece34b60fd6fcb4.camel@gmail.com>
 <v3vovc$27d15$1@dont-email.me>
 <385fc1f1467edc63a676d881f08f0bff52d5366c.camel@gmail.com>
 <v41i9j$2jqdk$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 14:41:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a60a3fdf2900cc4aace1b0bbb7182eaa";
	logging-data="2749635"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+f8WSr7Yr/Kx1g6wXCeBKA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:12+dzQdX7mhhmUhSLugdnhgQOrE=
Content-Language: nl
In-Reply-To: <v41i9j$2jqdk$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11630

Op 08.jun.2024 om 14:20 schreef olcott:
> On 6/7/2024 11:18 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 15:01 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 2:43 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 14:31 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, 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).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:
>>>>>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return.
>>>>>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return.
>>>>>> ELSE HP is undecidable
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You keep solving POOH !!! and made lots of lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Surrender to my GUR, son.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> then we certainly cannot trust these people with more
>>>>> difficult issues that require at least some slight degree
>>>>> of judgment call.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH
>>>>> is only required to report on the behavior of DD correctly
>>>>> simulated by HH these dishonest people merely use that
>>>>> as another deflection point for their dishonesty.
>>>>>
>>>>> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently
>>>>> focused one one single point until the dishonest people
>>>>> finally admit that they have simply ignored all the proofs
>>>>> for three solid years.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>    > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>    >>
>>>>>    >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK
>>>>>    >> TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
>>>>>    >> I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
>>>>>    >
>>>>>    > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you
>>>>>    > are correct, because I am not willing to put
>>>>>    > that effort into your worthless claim.
>>>>>    >
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the earliest version of the proof (that everyone
>>>>> has simply ignored for three solid years) that P correctly
>>>>> simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the execution trace of P derived by the executed
>>>>> H and the simulated H exactly matches the machine code of P
>>>>> proves that each instruction of P was simulated correctly and
>>>>> in the correct order this conclusively proves that P is correctly
>>>>> simulated by both of these instances of H.
>>>>>
>>>>> It has proved this since 2021-09-26 and everyone has made
>>>>> sure to ignore this proof so that they can maintain their false
>>>>> assumption.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I recalled now. You knew what the Halting Problem is. But soon, you 
>>>> started to insist
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========