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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard
 admits his error
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:32:54 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v48gh6$3kcoe$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v46na7$3ifov$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v48be9$rgsh$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:32:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3814158"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v48be9$rgsh$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4376
Lines: 67

On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that*
> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior*
> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction*
> *and simulates H simulating H*
> 

No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, and the only H you have show that 
correctly simulates the input to show it to be non-halting is the 
version of H that never aborts.

I am also pointing lut that as far as you have proviced evidence, NONE 
of you Hs have actually correctly simulated the input per your 
definition, as NONE of them have simulated that call H into H as required.

And you have admitted that you haven't ever produced (until maybe very 
recently) an output clearly showing that it did.

So, your claim has not be "verified".