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: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0
 ---Boilerplate Reply
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:09:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v54c3r$lkkc$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v50o2t$2fh98$2@dont-email.me>
 <v51dc8$2jmrd$1@dont-email.me> <v53b0s$324b4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v53tjm$35vak$1@dont-email.me> <v5415i$lkkc$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v543k2$376u3$1@dont-email.me> <v5460r$lkkc$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v54br6$38n2k$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 17:09:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="709260"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v54br6$38n2k$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4771
Lines: 83

On 6/21/24 1:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 10:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 9:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 9:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 20.jun.2024 om 16:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 3:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 20.jun.2024 om 02:00 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> This shows all of the steps of HH0 simulating DDD
>>>>>>>>> calling a simulated HH0 simulating DDD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/HH0_(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>>>>>>>> *Some of the key instructions are color coded*
>>>>>>>>> GREEN---DebugStep Address
>>>>>>>>> RED-----HH Address
>>>>>>>>> YELLOW--All of the DDD instructions
>>>>>>>>> CYAN----Return from DebugStep to Decide_Halting_HH
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>> [000020a2] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020a3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>> [000020aa] e8f3f9ffff call 00001aa2 ; call H0
>>>>>>>>> [000020af] 83c404     add esp,+04   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020b2] 5d         pop ebp       ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [000020b3] c3         ret           ; never gets here
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020b3]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Exactly which step of DDD emulated by H0 was emulated
>>>>>>>>> incorrectly such that this emulation would be complete?
>>>>>>>>> AKA DDD emulated by H0 reaches machine address [000020b3]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the simulation of a program with a loop of 5 iterations is 
>>>>>>>> aborted after 3 iterations, all instructions are correctly 
>>>>>>>> simulated. Nevertheless, it is an incorrect simulation, because 
>>>>>>>> it should simulate up to the final state of the program.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be helpful if you answer the actual question being asked
>>>>>>> right here and thus not answer some other question that was asked
>>>>>>> somewhere else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you do not understand that I answered the question why the 
>>>>>> simulation is incorrect, it is hopeless. The question which 
>>>>>> instruction is incorrect is not the right question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you say that something is incorrect and can't be specific
>>>>> then your rebuttal is pure bluster with no actual basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to show every single freaking step of exactly
>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own
>>>>> machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which proves your duplicity, since no one is claiming that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you claim that I have made a mistake and cannot point
>>> to the exact details of this mistake then everyone will
>>> know that you are lying about there being any actual mistake.
>>
>> Sure
>>
>> First, NO ONE has said that *H* (or what every you are calling your 
>> decider today) can correct simulate the input to a final state.
>>
> 
> Then you understand that H(D,D) is not even being
> asked the question: Does D(D) halt?
> 

Of course it is, at least if it is claimed to be a Halt Decider.

Nothing says that the decider has to actually be ABLE to answer the 
question, only that the answer exists. Uncomputable problems just can't 
be solved with a computation.

You just refuse to accept the only definition of that which is valid, 
because you logic can't handle it (and thus is wrong for the field).