Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:22:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 192
Message-ID: <v45kgq$3ue8q$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3r3hd$1ahl1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3r6mt$354i9$6@i2pn2.org> <v3r7p2$1b63v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3r914$354i9$7@i2pn2.org> <v3r9ds$1b96e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3rb52$354ia$7@i2pn2.org> <v3rbaj$1bg3t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3rc4m$354i9$8@i2pn2.org> <v3rcgn$1bpcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3rcks$354i9$9@i2pn2.org> <v3rd3r$1bsem$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3s5g6$36git$2@i2pn2.org> <v3sc8c$1gra7$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3tq33$388rj$13@i2pn2.org> <v3tstr$1td1o$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3tuqh$388ri$1@i2pn2.org> <v3v0qj$22vrk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3v85d$39ri5$11@i2pn2.org> <v3vacl$242e9$8@dont-email.me>
 <v3vh9l$a5e$2@news.muc.de> <v3vhvq$25ojk$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3vj8p$39ri6$7@i2pn2.org> <v3vk9b$266aq$2@dont-email.me>
 <v40vec$2gqa0$1@dont-email.me> <v41kvu$2jqdk$10@dont-email.me>
 <v43st3$3cipe$1@dont-email.me> <v44cpn$3harn$7@dont-email.me>
 <v44r3q$3egp9$11@i2pn2.org> <v45gm5$3tchc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v45hpt$3h641$1@i2pn2.org> <v45ikp$3tpr9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v45jl1$3h642$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 03:22:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6820c6f88a6ab7f47362bcc86c8cb3a";
	logging-data="4143386"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dTg1us1WkMybBpJWLHXZ5"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Dc/R9Eh/4ZGfVZp5fZGfpOlZHak=
In-Reply-To: <v45jl1$3h642$2@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9370

On 6/9/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 7:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/24 10:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 4:33 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-08 13:06:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 1:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-07 18:41:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e12] 55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e15] 51         push ecx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it? 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Less than a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N).  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your criterion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That now seems to have changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
>>>>>>>>>>>> improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>>>>>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e12] 55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e15] 51         push ecx
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the above definition of correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> More dishonest deflection.
>>>>>>>>>> The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
>>>>>>>>>> deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is 
>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>> simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
>>>>>>>>>> executed DD(DD).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The true point is that you have never shown any proof about 
>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>> by HH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words you lack the mandatory prerequisites so the
>>>>>>>> correct proof only looks like gibberish to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hard to teest wihout the correct proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, something that starts with "Proof:" and ends with 
>>>>>>> "Q.E.D." may
>>>>>>> fail to be a proof. It depends on what is between.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void HHH(ptr P, ptr I)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    P(I);
>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(x, x);
>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
>>>>>> statement thus never halt.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> V V V So, what does this mean???? (see comment below) V V V
>>>
>>>>>> When HHH is a simulating halt decider then HHH sees that
>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>> own return statement, AKA
>>>>>
>>>>> But HHH (as shown above) ISN'T a simulating halt decider, so you 
>>>>> are just caught in another of youre lies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say it was a simulating halt decider. I needed to see
>>>> if my reviewers understand what infinite recursion is before
>>>> proceeding with them. It looks like they do not understand this.
>>>
>>> The why did you say "When HHH is a simulating Halt Decider..."
>>>
>>> You can't use the same name in the same arguememt to mean different 
>>> things!
>>>
>>> SO of course you are implying that your HHH above is to be thought of 
>>> as a Simulating Halting Decider, or at least that it will behave as one.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you call everything that I say a lie even when it
>>>> is not even incorrect is ridiculously childish of you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because most things you say are a lie, because you just don't know 
>>> what you are saying.
>>>
>>
>> I told one exaggeration five years ago.
>> I said that I had a Turing machine believing that what I
>> had was equivalent to a Turing machine, not yet knowing
>> that anyone understood Turing equivalence.
> 
> NO, you have told many more lies than that.
> 
> For instance, you said that you system produced a 250 page trace that 
> you verified that it showed a property of H, when it turns out you 
> barely glanced at it and didn't even realizd it wasn't the trace you 
> thought it was.
> 
> OBVIOUSLY you lied that you studied that trace.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========