Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.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: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard
 admits his error
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 23:31:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <v48jv2$se9c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v46na7$3ifov$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v48be9$rgsh$1@dont-email.me> <v48gh6$3kcoe$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 06:31:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7511da41317e1c66c22f772cd659795f";
	logging-data="932140"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lPIVogPZ630VT9JtppDg7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WIA1A0vso8VD7OawICmrDJRyVcU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v48gh6$3kcoe$4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4513

On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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, 

*This H does do it*
D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D
as the above line of code requires.

The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code
thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly
simulated by H.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer