Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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 16:01:55 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 267
Message-ID: <v41o8l$2jt63$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v41liv$2kanc$2@dont-email.me> <v41msk$2jt63$3@dont-email.me>
 <v41nja$2kanc$9@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 16:01:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a60a3fdf2900cc4aace1b0bbb7182eaa";
	logging-data="2749635"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18J/NW6l/jvGJZjglaDWg8A"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:snqb/BjZpE6tAzcWSKYySCnThYw=
In-Reply-To: <v41nja$2kanc$9@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 13779

Op 08.jun.2024 om 15:50 schreef olcott:
> On 6/8/2024 8:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 08.jun.2024 om 15:16 schreef olcott:
>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========