Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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 23:56:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v43962$3egpa$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@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>
 <v435vj$355ev$2@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 03:56:51 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3621674"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v435vj$355ev$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 13368
Lines: 254

On 6/8/24 11:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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]
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========