Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:19:33 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <v4corm$1p0h0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me> <v43ib7$38hnd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4628o$6ero$1@dont-email.me> <v468qt$7uvj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v47joj$je45$1@dont-email.me> <v47kt3$jhs8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v47l92$je45$2@dont-email.me> <v48tt4$tqad$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4a07r$157ic$1@dont-email.me> <v4beis$1h0p6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4cceu$1mi5i$2@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 20:19:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4290016802773874b5346490e3d15051";
	logging-data="1868320"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HV9208P72/68W+eeWv3l4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/6B+nRR3hzVOehr8k6qhwM8HlM4=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v4cceu$1mi5i$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8027

Op 12.jun.2024 om 16:47 schreef olcott:
> On 6/12/2024 1:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 11.jun.2024 om 19:07 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/11/2024 2:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 10.jun.2024 om 21:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>> Proven false. The direct execution does not ignore the call to H. 
>>>
>>> Yes that is the second big mistake that I am aware that I made
>>> within the last year.
>>>
>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>
>>> The other big mistake was what I said happens when Linz H is
>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. I forgot what I said and I forgot what the
>>> correct answer was. I do remember this is was my big mistake.
>>>
>>> No one has ever shown any actual error with my analysis of embedded_H
>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. It is a verified fact that is over everyone's head
>>> besides mine that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot
>>> possibly reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩.
>>>
>>> Everyone assumes that I must be wrong and only have dogma to base
>>> this assumption on. I have reasoning to prove that they are wrong
>>> yet this reasoning is over their heads.
>>>
>>> I have made isomorphic reasoning 100% concrete with this example
>>> and every has simply ignored this reasoning 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*
>>> *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*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is no infinite nested simulation detected,
> 
> If I am wrong then a specific sequence of steps of D correctly
> simulated by H where D terminates normally can be provided.

No infinite execution has been detected, only a premature abortion. That 
is a much better explanation why H did not return.

It is like an archer who is asked to hit a target twice as far as his 
bow can reach. His bow reaches 50m and the target is at 100m. He misses.
Then he uses a new bow that reaches 100m, but now the target is at 200m. 
He is able to reach the old target, but again he misses the target for 
the new bow. He can continue, if the bow reaches further, the target is 
also further away. But note, the target is never at infinity.
Similarly, the target of the simulator is never at infinity, but always 
some steps further that the simulation goes. You can make a simulator 
that simulates further, which can reach the target of the old simulator, 
but it is unable to reach its own target. So, there is no infinite 
recursion, but the simulation always misses the target. The simulation 
is never able to simulate itself up to the end. It always aborts 
prematurely.