Path: ...!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: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:02:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <v5ef4n$1ihbr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v598l4$c4if$1@dont-email.me> <v5add4$isal$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5aebe$smd4$5@i2pn2.org> <v5aggb$jan3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5ah6u$smd5$7@i2pn2.org> <v5ahkc$jgfe$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5ai8i$smd5$8@i2pn2.org> <v5aij8$nd1b$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5ajva$smd4$6@i2pn2.org> <v5akga$nr6u$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5aktu$smd4$8@i2pn2.org> <v5alis$o08r$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5alpo$smd5$10@i2pn2.org> <v5am7l$o31i$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5an1e$o6ib$1@dont-email.me> <v5ao4p$smd4$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5ap10$odqa$1@dont-email.me> <v5bjn9$ursa$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5bt3m$v0vb$2@dont-email.me> <v5cuta$10m6o$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d0bf$162m0$1@dont-email.me> <v5d188$10m6p$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d1ev$16a8b$1@dont-email.me> <v5d1mm$10m6o$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d3b4$16k7k$1@dont-email.me> <v5d4gj$10m6o$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d81s$17fhi$1@dont-email.me> <v5d8fr$10m6o$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d9iv$1bem6$2@dont-email.me> <v5d9s6$10m6p$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5daji$1bll8$1@dont-email.me> <v5db62$10m6o$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v5dckm$1bteo$1@dont-email.me> <v5e87h$12a1a$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:02:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="422dd2162c45ab1a09b084523bb5ca66";
	logging-data="1656187"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qPSQ7B3tUvM1bfW1BjQw/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Iy/hJ5Gg+hXwSKp+4d3K4we6scU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5e87h$12a1a$2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5688

On 6/25/2024 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/24/24 11:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/24/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/24/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
>>>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
>>>>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like 
>>>>>>> what I say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You said that D correctly simulated by H must
>>>>>>>> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the 
>>>>>>> directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NOT ONE DIFFERENCE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Honest mistake or liar?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to
>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H1
>>>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not the same behavior as
>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H
>>>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the direct 
>>>>> executions trace?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> D correctly simulated by H
>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return*
>>>
>>> Which isn't "Behavior of the input"
>>>
>>> The "not happening" of something that could have happened except that 
>>> the processing was stoped is NOT behavior.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> D correctly simulated by H1 --- Identical to D(D)
>>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns*
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and it contains ALL of the behavior of the correct simulation 
>>> of D by H, plus more.
>>>
>>> H doesn't see DIFFERENT behavior, just LESS, and that differnce isn't 
>>> due to the input, but due to H.
>>
>> *These are not the same behaviors*
>>
>> (Assuming unlimited memory)
>> When 1 to a googolplex of steps of D are correctly simulated by H
>> *the call from D to H(D,D) NEVER RETURNS*
> 
> Correction, 1 to a googleplex of steps if DIFFERENT Ds, each paired with 
> a DIFFERENT H, when simulated by that H, the DIFFFERENT routines called 
> by those DIFFERENT Ds to that DIFFERENT H(D,D) is never simulated to an 
> end.
> 

_P()
[000020e2] 55               push ebp         ; housekeeping
[000020e3] 8bec             mov ebp,esp      ; housekeeping
[000020e5] 51               push ecx         ; housekeeping
[000020e6] 8b4508           mov eax,[ebp+08] ; parameter
[000020e9] 50               push eax         ; push parameter
[000020ea] 8b4d08           mov ecx,[ebp+08] ; parameter
[000020ed] 51               push ecx         ; push parameter
[000020ee] e82ff3ffff       call 00001422    ; call H(P,P)
[000020f3] 83c408           add esp,+08
[000020f6] 8945fc           mov [ebp-04],eax
[000020f9] 837dfc00         cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[000020fd] 7402             jz 00002101
[000020ff] ebfe             jmp 000020ff
[00002101] 8b45fc           mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002104] 8be5             mov esp,ebp
[00002106] 5d               pop ebp
[00002107] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0038) [00002107]

The call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D
is correctly simulated by any H that can possibly exist.

Unless you say yes you are correct we cannot move on to
the next point.

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