Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:16:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v46na7$3ifov$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$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 11:16:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3751711"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4834
Lines: 76

On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*

So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a verified fact is 
just a LIE.

> 
> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
> 
> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same
> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions
> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below).

So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D correctly 
simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent statement for the behavior 
of the direct execution of the input as required by the Halting Problem, 
so you admit you have been LYING every time you imply that it is.

> 
> _D()
> [00000cfc](01)  55                      push ebp
> [00000cfd](02)  8bec                    mov ebp,esp
> [00000cff](03)  8b4508                  mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000d02](01)  50                      push eax       ; push D
> [00000d03](03)  8b4d08                  mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000d06](01)  51                      push ecx       ; push D
> [00000d07](05)  e800feffff              call 00000b0c  ; call H
> [00000d0c](03)  83c408                  add esp,+08
> [00000d0f](02)  85c0                    test eax,eax
> [00000d11](02)  7404                    jz 00000d17
> [00000d13](02)  33c0                    xor eax,eax
> [00000d15](02)  eb05                    jmp 00000d1c
> [00000d17](05)  b801000000              mov eax,00000001
> [00000d1c](01)  5d                      pop ebp
> [00000d1d](01)  c3                      ret
> Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]
> 
> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the
> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine
> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D*

No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly.

Your problem is that it turns out that the only way that a correct 
simulation by H to be an actual correct simulation that shows halting 
behavior, it can't answer and be a decider.

> 
> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
> The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.
> 

But your H DOES ignore the CORRECT behavior of that instruction, as a 
correct simulation of that instruction (by what ever type of simulation 
you want to do) must either continue it trace inot the function H (which 
none of your publish traces of the resutls of the simulation H does do) 
if the simulation instruction level, or it must show the effective 
behavior of the actaul function H, which is to return 0 (since you claim 
you H is correct, and correct to return 0).

Neither of these is what your "correct simulation" of the input does, so 
it can not be a correct simulation of the input. Your H just doesn't 
"correctly simulate" that call instruction, but does invalid logic to 
conclude the wrong answer.

It seems impossible for you claim that you have looked at the trace of H 
acuallly doing the x86 instruction trace of H to show that it was 
correctly determining what you claim, as your "250 page" trace turns out 
not to be that trace, and you admit you didn't look at it closely, and 
you JUST think you figured out how to get such a trace out.

Thus, you could NOT have verified it 3 years ago.

So, you have just been caught in a LIE.