Path: ...!news.mixmin.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 23:06:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 266
Message-ID: <v439om$368s4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@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>
 <v43962$3egpa$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 06:06:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8e472f6a5ded880f3c8d2cedf42e75a";
	logging-data="3351428"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18mFAbz8v40k9X2/jLzO3Xy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:j0Lex58I0LFfMczlXuyFjc2A8Kc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v43962$3egpa$2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 14034

On 6/8/2024 10:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========