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: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 22:17:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5fto2$14bcm$9@i2pn2.org>
References: <v598l4$c4if$1@dont-email.me> <v5ah6u$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> <v5ef4n$1ihbr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5frvi$14bcm$4@i2pn2.org> <v5fslr$1uc3o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:17:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1191318"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5fslr$1uc3o$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7963
Lines: 158

On 6/25/24 9:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/25/24 9:02 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> No, the call most definitinely DOES return, but that return is after 
>> the simulation ended.
>>
> 
> Maybe the real problem is that you have insufficient technical competence.

Nope, that isn't the problem. I KNOW what I am talking about, as opposed 
to you who can't even write a simple Turing Machine.

> 
>> Your problem is that, strictly, by your definition of "Correct 
>> Simulation", 
> 
> The semantics of the x86 language objectively proves that I am correct.
> Have you been faking your technical competence?

Nope.

> 
> Can you do better with this simpler example?
> 
> _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 call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
> by H0 cannot possibly return.
> 
> 

But the call will, just not in the simulation that your H0 does.

After all, you still haven't learned to define you terms,

Just put:

int H0(ptr x) {
    static int flag = 0;
    if (flag) return 0;
    flag = 1
    ...


at the begining of your H.

You haven't learned to define it properly, and if you want to claim we 
need to remember what you said, then H0 is a Halt Decider, and thus the 
only definition of the behavior of its input is the behavior of the 
machine represented by it, so we need to look at the direct execution.

You are just showing yourself to be incompetent at your arguments.