| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v4ak5o$3kcoe$6@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 --- rewritten Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:47:20 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v4ak5o$3kcoe$6@i2pn2.org> 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> <v4a0hs$157ic$3@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 22:47:20 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3814158"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v4a0hs$157ic$3@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 11030 Lines: 212 On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote: > 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* WRONG. *YOU* have verified that the directly executed D(D) will reach its return statement. > > 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]. But that isn't the question, we were talking aboiut the direct exection of D(D). To quote you from above: " The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code" Which is just a wrong stateement that you are now trying to do a dishonest dodge to diflect from. > > 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 No, *YOU* are changing the subject, perhaps because you accidentally stumbled on a land mine and mistakenly got yourself onto the actual question that you have been avoiding, > > 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* Because no one cares about your D only partially simulated by H, as it doesn't actual answer any question that people care about. > > (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. Except that this is NOT what a correct simulation of the input to H(D,D) should be simulating > > (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* ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========