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: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 09:50:58 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v41nk2$3cg3t$16@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v41kqk$3cg3t$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v41mp8$2kanc$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 13:50:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3555453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v41mp8$2kanc$5@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12447
Lines: 256

On 6/8/24 9:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/8/2024 8:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/8/24 8:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========