| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v4c12t$3oop0$4@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: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:33:48 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v4c12t$3oop0$4@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> <v4b17k$3nf9n$2@i2pn2.org> <v4b48k$1f89t$4@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 11:33:49 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3957536"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v4b48k$1f89t$4@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 6873 Lines: 119 On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: > 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). > As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, that is a UTM. There may not be a fintie string-transformation, i.e. an algorithm that does it in finite time, but there is no requirement for that on functions we can ask a decider to compute. That is needed to actually be able to compute it, and make the function computable, but there is no "rule" against asking an impossible problem. The answer to "Can you build a decider that does ...." can be NO, as it is with a Halt Decider. You are just showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concepts of the field you are claiming to be making important discoveries in.