Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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 22:47:53 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4354p$3egp9$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@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> <v42j11$2r808$1@dont-email.me>
 <v42jiq$3cg3t$32@i2pn2.org> <v42k5h$2rs28$1@dont-email.me>
 <v42lo4$3cg3t$34@i2pn2.org> <v42m2f$2shmd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:47:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3621673"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v42m2f$2shmd$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 13070
Lines: 261

On 6/8/24 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/8/2024 5:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/8/24 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2024 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/24 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========