Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.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 16:38:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 178
Message-ID: <v42j11$2r808$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3nkqr$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>
 <v42gag$2qfo2$1@dont-email.me> <v42gjk$3cg3s$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v42hk3$2qqrl$1@dont-email.me> <v42ie0$3cg3t$31@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 23:38:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99ea1b6838dd1404bad406fc122dbf0f";
	logging-data="2990088"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dFygjqIWcgkNBc6aT4VG1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Owh0CYh9hRiQfdHIpo3sNHVJJig=
In-Reply-To: <v42ie0$3cg3t$31@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9953

On 6/8/2024 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/8/24 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/8/2024 3:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/8/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And where does that say that the correct measure of the behavior of 
>>> DD is DD incorrectly simulated?
>>>
>>
>> I cut you off at your first big mistake so that we can focus
>> on correcting this big mistake.
> 
> And ignored the meaning of my statemert, and made you into a blantent LIAR.
> 
>>
>> *I can't address all of this point in one step because you*
>> *have proven that even one step is too confusing for you*
>>
>> *I can't address all of this point in one step because you*
>> *have proven that even one step is too confusing for you*
>>
>> *I can't address all of this point in one step because you*
>> *have proven that even one step is too confusing for you*
>> HERE IS STEP ONE
>>
>> _DD()
>> [00001c22] 55         push ebp
>> [00001c23] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [00001c25] 51         push ecx
>> [00001c26] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [00001c29] 50         push eax      ; push DD 1c22
>> [00001c2a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00001c2d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD 1c22
>> [00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342 ; call HH
>>
>> *When DD is correctly simulated by simulating halt decider HH*
>>
>> New slave_stack at:10306d
>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113075
>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>> [00001c22][00113061][00113065] 55         push ebp         ; begin DD
>> [00001c23][00113061][00113065] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>> [00001c25][0011305d][00103031] 51         push ecx
>> [00001c26][0011305d][00103031] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>> [00001c29][00113059][00001c22] 50         push eax         ; push DD
>> [00001c2a][00113059][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>> [00001c2d][00113055][00001c22] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
>> [00001c2e][00113051][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342    ; call HH
>> New slave_stack at:14da95
> 
> ERROR!!! ERROR!! SIMULATION INCORECT
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========