Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 22:21:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <v4b48k$1f89t$4@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>
 <v4a0hs$157ic$3@dont-email.me> <v4ak5o$3kcoe$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4am8r$19edk$1@dont-email.me> <v4b17k$3nf9n$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 05:21:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6f170c39f5487c8533188545300f883a";
	logging-data="1548605"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183kYjxCfR3XWug7neIeVq7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8ya0RmCChS6Xq8fsb3qMRZ+vOnY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4b17k$3nf9n$2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6286

On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.

There are no finite string transformation rules
from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D).

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