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
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:41:06 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v45lji$3h641$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$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>
 <v45kgq$3ue8q$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 01:41:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3709057"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v45kgq$3ue8q$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10105
Lines: 217

On 6/9/24 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========