Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v4a0hs$157ic$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 --- rewritten Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:12:28 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 149 Message-ID: <v4a0hs$157ic$3@dont-email.me> References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v46na7$3ifov$4@i2pn2.org> <v48be9$rgsh$1@dont-email.me> <v48gh6$3kcoe$4@i2pn2.org> <v48jv2$se9c$1@dont-email.me> <v49dge$3kcoe$5@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 19:12:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7511da41317e1c66c22f772cd659795f"; logging-data="1220172"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JhEgSpYgP82FSGDoA2FR0" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Sp01dsM4ogjFde66wF7QfTY/9UM= In-Reply-To: <v49dge$3kcoe$5@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8195 On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote: >> 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. >> > > WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return statement? > That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year. *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* On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ _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] It is impossible for D correctly simulated by H to ever reach its simulated final state at its own machine address [00000d1d]. People disagree with this by changing the subject to D not simulated by H as all. They have been indoctrinated into believing that this strawman deception is correct yet cannot possibly show the detailed steps of how D correctly simulated by H can possibly reach its own simulated machine address of [00000d1d]. *Here are the steps that prove that I am correct* (1) Executed H simulates the first seven instructions of D. (2) Simulated D calls simulated H(D,D) to simulate itself again. (3) Simulated H simulates the first seven instructions of simulated simulated D. (4) Simulated simulated D simulated by simulated H calls simulated simulated H(D,D) to simulate itself again. *HERE ARE ALL OF CONCRETE DETAILS OF THAT* *Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:cfc* [00000cfc][00211839][0021183d](01) 55 push ebp ; begin D [00000cfd][00211839][0021183d](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff][00211839][0021183d](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02][00211835][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03][00211835][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06][00211831][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07][0021182d][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H *This call to H is simulated by directly executed H* machine stack stack machine assembly address address data code language ======== ======== ======== =============== ============= [00000cfc][0025c261][0025c265](01) 55 push ebp ; begin D [00000cfd][0025c261][0025c265](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff][0025c261][0025c265](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02][0025c25d][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03][0025c25d][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06][0025c259][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07][0025c255][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H *This call to H would be simulated by simulated executed H* *Infinitely Nested Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer