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 22:30:12 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4b17k$3nf9n$2@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> <v4ak5o$3kcoe$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4am8r$19edk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:30:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3915063"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v4am8r$19edk$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6717
Lines: 122

On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider
> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the
> business of H.

IMPOSSIBLE.

Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about.

The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means.

A Halt-Decider must BY DEFINITION compute the Halt function, which *IS* 
about the behavior of the directly executed D(D). So, if that is 
definitionally out of bounds, that just PROVES that there can't be a 
Halt Decider.

Of course, since it is shown that we CAN built "Halt-Deciders" for large 
classes of inputs, it is obviously a fact that the direct execution of 
the input CAN be the "business" of a decider.

YOu are just proving your ignorance of what you talk about, and thus 
NOTHING you talk about should be beleived.

That is the problem with lying so much, even if you do happen to 
discover something, no one will care, because it looks like just another 
of your lies.

Pity, some of your ideas had some interesting thoughts, but considering 
what you have shown of your intuition, they probably don't end up 
working anyway.

> 
> We were going to get to that point after you quit your
> THREE YEARS OF STRAW-MAN DECEPTION.
>