Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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 --- finite
 string transformation rules
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <v4da12$1sioe$1@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> <v4apjs$19rnv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4arp0$1a7uo$1@dont-email.me> <v4b1c3$3nf9n$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4b50m$1f89t$5@dont-email.me> <v4c12r$3oop0$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4cjl7$1o4b4$1@dont-email.me> <v4d991$3qbnc$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 01:12:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="72fba8c553b5e17b65491f92678bf7b8";
	logging-data="1985294"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18jkp/U8BhFhQ4Di5OjDEzn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uV1uqQ0JrfSCVua3HvvJCuyJKKE=
In-Reply-To: <v4d991$3qbnc$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4124

On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input
>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D)
>>>>>> is irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course there is.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips
>>>> though the cracks of vagueness.
>>>>
>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that
>>>> DDD terminates normally.
>>>
>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true.
>>>
>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter 
>>> example exists, it might just not be discovered.
>>>
>>
>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>>
>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism*
>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker
>> for halt decider H.
> 
> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the 
> input when directly run.
> 

*If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
*of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*

*A LEAP OF FAITH DOES NOT COUNT IN THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION*
*SHOW ME THE DETAILED STEPS*

_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]


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