Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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 22:25:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 160
Message-ID: <v5g1nr$1v8bm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v598l4$c4if$1@dont-email.me> <v5aij8$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> <v5fvtf$14bcn$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 05:25:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="863b71206377856c10e8f571e9178830";
	logging-data="2072950"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Sz2HRxzKXuDclwtl59wwA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0JhpmcN9FA/k7GOhaqVjB/taFj4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5fvtf$14bcn$3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8570

On 6/25/2024 9:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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

H0 is not even a decider yet. When you leap ahead you
diverge from the point at hand.

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