Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 09:25:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 298
Message-ID: <v41pk4$2kanc$16@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$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> <v41o8l$2jt63$5@dont-email.me>
 <v41ogt$2kanc$13@dont-email.me> <v41p8p$2jt63$6@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 16:25:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99ea1b6838dd1404bad406fc122dbf0f";
	logging-data="2763500"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VlhiXZHPzheVLJqaFA2IF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wYvBBict7SW0HO/KiWK2b55ex5U=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v41p8p$2jt63$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 15661

On 6/8/2024 9:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 08.jun.2024 om 16:06 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/8/2024 9:01 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========