| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v4d9gt$3qbnc$2@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 19:03:57 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v4d9gt$3qbnc$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> <v4b17k$3nf9n$2@i2pn2.org> <v4b48k$1f89t$4@dont-email.me> <v4c12t$3oop0$4@i2pn2.org> <v4ck2c$1o4b4$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 23:03:57 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4009708"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <v4ck2c$1o4b4$2@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 9047 Lines: 173 On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> 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. >> > > On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ > > Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated > by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have > is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. > > *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* > *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* > *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* And since H doesn't then simulate that, it is just an incorrect simulation > > *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* > *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* > *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* > The call to H, followed by the assembly instructions of H. > THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? > THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? > THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? who says the simualation, BY H, can do that? It is the simulation by a UTM that can. Since you don't give the instructions of H, and I won't fix your program to generate that (without payment), I won't provide that detail list to you, but since it has been shown that D(D) WILL halt since H(D,D) returns 0, that is sufficient. > > _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] > ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========