Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v5cv62$10m6p$2@i2pn2.org>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v5cv62$10m6p$2@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 19:23:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5cv62$10m6p$2@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> <v565d9$3mg7e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v56iht$3or0r$4@dont-email.me> <v576d7$3sg5p$2@dont-email.me>
 <v576k6$3soh6$3@dont-email.me> <v58qsk$9a7f$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5981p$brmn$4@dont-email.me> <v5bf4l$s2cu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5cd6d$128l4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 23:23:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1071321"; 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: <v5cd6d$128l4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8095
Lines: 153

On 6/24/24 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2024 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 23.jun.2024 om 15:30 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/23/2024 4:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 22.jun.2024 om 20:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:50 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 22.jun.2024 om 15:11 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 4:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:01 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If ..., but that condition is not present, so the 'then' does 
>>>>>>>> not apply.
>>>>>>>> This makes the sentence completely superfluous. I would expect 
>>>>>>>> better from someone who claims to be an experienced programmer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But since I pointed out in a very detailed way, why it is 
>>>>>>>> incorrect, your reply shows that you do not understand where you 
>>>>>>>> are talking about, which then becomes utterly nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question which instruction is incorrectly simulated already 
>>>>>>>> shows your error. The error is not that an instruction is 
>>>>>>>> simulated incorrectly, but that some instruction are not 
>>>>>>>> simulated at all.
>>>>>>>> Why is that already over your head?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD 
>>>>>>> presents
>>>>>>> to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> this call DOES NOT RETURN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD 
>>>>>>> presents
>>>>>>> to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> this call DOES RETURN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We know that 'verified fact' for you means 'my wish'.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Is it merely my wish that for decimal integers 2 + 3 = 5
>>> or is this according to the semantics of arithmetic?
>>>
>>>>> Ignoramus?
>>>>>
>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is 
>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when 
>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot 
>>>>> possibly return.
>>>>>
>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>
>>>>> When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not call 
>>>>> H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1 that its 
>>>>> call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior as the 
>>>>> directly executed DDD().
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly what I predicted. Olcott can not point to any error in what 
>>>> I said and just repeats his baseless claim.
>>>
>>> The semantics of the x86 programming language conclusively proves
>>> that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) 
>>> cannot possibly return.
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>
>>> The semantics of arithmetic conclusively proves that
>>> for the decimal integers 2 + 3 = 5.
>>>
>>
>> So, why don't you agree?
> 
> That seems to be a stupid thing to say. I insist
> that I do agree and then you ask why I do not agree,
> is what a Troll would say.
> 

No, you claim something proves something bur refuse to actually form the 
proof.

The claim of the existance of a proof is not a proof of the claim.