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: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 22:54:38 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5fvtf$14bcn$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v598l4$c4if$1@dont-email.me> <v5ai8i$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>
 <v5fto2$14bcm$9@i2pn2.org> <v5fu06$1umhr$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 02:54:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1191319"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5fu06$1umhr$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8863
Lines: 171

On 6/25/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/25/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> OK so we are back to you being a freaking liar trying to get
> away with contradicting the semantics of the x86 language.
> 

How does that contradictthe semantics of the x86 languge?

If H0 is a decider, it will ALWAYS return an answer in finite time, and 
thus the call H0 in DDD will result in, eventually, being returned.

Remember, the semanitc of the x86 language says every instruction WILL 
BE followed by the execution of the next instruction in the exectution 
sequence until we reach a halt instruction, or we leave the proggram by 
it returning to the presumed call to it.

What is wrong with that.

Aborted simulation just don't tell us about what happens after the 
aborting, so you can't say will never return, just didn't return YET.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========