Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 22:02:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 241
Message-ID: <v435vj$355ev$2@dont-email.me>
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>
 <v4354p$3egp9$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 05:02:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8e472f6a5ded880f3c8d2cedf42e75a";
	logging-data="3315167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lnC5DHZlSSK29wXbNmeqv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EIBO44d4SGi1BNd425z8u6PqoGs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4354p$3egp9$2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 12787

On 6/8/2024 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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*
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========