Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 10:01:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v41o7p$3cg3t$19@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$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> <v40vec$2gqa0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v41kvu$2jqdk$10@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 14:01:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3555453"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v41kvu$2jqdk$10@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6718
Lines: 126

On 6/8/24 9:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/8/2024 1:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> In other words you lack the mandatory prerequisites so the
> correct proof only looks like gibberish to you.
> 
> I incorporate by reference
> (a) The x86 language
> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator
> 
> (c) I provide this complete function
> 
> void DDD(int (*x)())
> {
>    HH(x, x);
> }
> 
> _DDD()
> [00001de2] 55         push ebp
> [00001de3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [00001de5] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001de8] 50         push eax         ; push DD
> [00001de9] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001dec] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
> [00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382    ; call HH
> [00001df2] 83c408     add esp,+08
> [00001df5] 5d         pop ebp
> [00001df6] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
> 
> Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
> x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
> instruction.

Which shows that YOU lack the neccessary mandaroty prerequesits to talk 
about logic, since that is NOT a proof statement, but a conclusion that 
hasn't been actually proven.

> 
> To anyone having this mandatory prerequisite knowledge
> (perhaps not you) every x86 emulation of DDD by any
> x86 emulator H continually repeats the first seven lines
> of DDD until it crashes due to out-of-memory error.
> 

Which means you are stipulating that ALL your "deciders" will fail to 
decide, and thus your system is just incorrect.

That our you are just admitting to LYING about P / D / DD / DDD being 
built by the templates of the Linz / Sipser proofs on the actual decider 
that is claimed to be correct, but are just straw men to try to justify 
your false claims.

Take you pick, which wrong version are you in?