Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should
 I quit Richard at this point?
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:52:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <v42gag$2qfo2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me> <v3l7uo$13cp$8@dont-email.me>
 <v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me> <v3mq9j$chc3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3mrli$chc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3nkqr$h7f9$3@dont-email.me> <v3p4ka$sk6h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3pp7p$v133$8@dont-email.me> <v3s27e$1f9kd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3sf1n$1gra7$11@dont-email.me> <v3sjo9$1ialb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3skoo$1iedv$1@dont-email.me> <v3u9ej$1v7rn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3v6i7$23l33$1@dont-email.me> <v3ve38$259cg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3vf0b$24orn$4@dont-email.me> <v40u4u$2gi7t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v41k6l$2jqdk$8@dont-email.me> <v41l89$3cg3t$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v41nei$2kanc$8@dont-email.me> <v41oo8$3cg3t$22@i2pn2.org>
 <v41pbc$2kanc$15@dont-email.me> <v41raj$3cg3t$25@i2pn2.org>
 <v41s4e$2l7o9$2@dont-email.me> <v41sjf$3cg3s$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v41tj5$2ll6e$1@dont-email.me> <v41vc6$3cg3t$26@i2pn2.org>
 <v423a9$2m6lc$1@dont-email.me> <v42ejp$3cg3t$27@i2pn2.org>
 <v42f9k$2q842$1@dont-email.me> <v42g1g$3cg3s$9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 22:52:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99ea1b6838dd1404bad406fc122dbf0f";
	logging-data="2965250"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+yiSHsjN/yWENUEeFch2Nm"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Xay4YUQYd95b58hdvMUDvFYdQoY=
In-Reply-To: <v42g1g$3cg3s$9@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6719

On 6/8/2024 3:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/8/24 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/8/2024 3:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/8/24 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/8/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 10:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I HAVE pointed out what is missing, ANY set of 
>>>>>>>>>>> truth-perserving operations from the accepted facts (which 
>>>>>>>>>>> will of course need to name the fact they are working from) 
>>>>>>>>>>> to your conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The accepted facts are here
>>>>>>>>>> (a) The x86 language
>>>>>>>>>> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> {The proof that No DDD correctly emulated by any x86
>>>>>>>>>>   emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6] instruction}
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, how do you show this claim?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have a tracing of the full INFINITE SET of possible Hs?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is the set of possible execution traces of DDD correctly
>>>>>>>>>> emulated by x86 emulator HH on the basis of the above
>>>>>>>>>> accepted facts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you are just clueless about these technical details
>>>>>>>>>> are are trying to hide this with pure bluster.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You keep disagreeing with the fact that DDD correctly
>>>>>>>>>> emulated by x86 emulator HH only has one single correct
>>>>>>>>>> execution trace of repeating the fist seven lines until
>>>>>>>>>> out-of-memory error.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But that is an INCORRECT trace per your definition,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The call HH instruction MUST be simulated into HH because that 
>>>>>>>>> IS the behavior of the x86 instruction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did I ever say that it is not?
>>>>>>>> For the above DDD correctly emulated by x86 emulator HH
>>>>>>>> the first seven instructions of DD keep repeating because
>>>>>>>> DDD keeps calling HH(DDD,DDD) to emulate itself again and
>>>>>>>> again until HH/DDD hits out-of-memory exception.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the x86 emulation of the code must go into HH(DDD,DDD)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is pretty stupid to assume otherwise when HH is
>>>>>> stipulated to be an x86 emulator.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, so why did you say otherwise?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I never said otherwise you simply "read" meanings that I didn't say.
>>>> this thread: [Should I quit Richard at this point?]
>>>> stands alone and should not be interpreted within the
>>>> context of anything else that I ever said.
>>>
>>> So, we are NOT to use your previous statements for earlier posts?
>>>
>>> You keep on changing you mind, and not being clear. That shows your 
>>> deceitful nature.
>>>
>> I must increasing narrow the focus of attention to ever
>> get any closure on as many as one single point.
>>
>> The one point now is that DD correctly simulated by HH
>> proves that HH is correct to reject DD as non-halting.
> 
> Which is incorrect, because you are using the wrong definition of 
> correct simulation.
> 
>>
>> For three years every reviewer has essentially insisted that the
>> correct measure of the behavior of DD is DD incorrectly simulated
>> by HH. The behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) cannot possibly
>> be achieved by DD correctly simulated by HH as the x86 machine-code
>> of DD *conclusively proves BEYOND ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT*
>>
> Nope, and if that is what your though, you are just an idiot.
> 

When one disagrees with the execution trace that x86 code specifies
one is essentially doing the same thing as disagreeing with arithmetic.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer