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: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 08:16:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 256
Message-ID: <v41liv$2kanc$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v41jhb$2jt63$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 15:16:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99ea1b6838dd1404bad406fc122dbf0f";
	logging-data="2763500"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+dzXrtxmuER/mQDgrKQxe/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:j3h0AEQt77osvEyCAMOoyXycpz4=
In-Reply-To: <v41jhb$2jt63$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12738

On 6/8/2024 7:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========