| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5ibfc$2cko8$5@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:24:12 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 205 Message-ID: <v5ibfc$2cko8$5@dont-email.me> References: <v598l4$c4if$1@dont-email.me> <v5ao4p$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> <v5g1nr$1v8bm$1@dont-email.me> <v5g24k$14bcm$10@i2pn2.org> <v5g2ds$1v8bm$3@dont-email.me> <v5gs85$15l89$1@i2pn2.org> <v5h5c4$24jbd$9@dont-email.me> <v5i8vg$17ej1$3@i2pn2.org> <v5i9fh$2cko8$2@dont-email.me> <v5i9j2$17ej0$2@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 02:24:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6b7ddfe8775f34f568700240d9d1b"; logging-data="2511624"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kV/Hy6c1PVn03g4RyOfXz" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:R9qDKCWmotAArizF6qB3tEKwntw= In-Reply-To: <v5i9j2$17ej0$2@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 11286 On 6/26/2024 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/26/24 7:50 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/26/24 9:33 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/26/2024 5:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/24 11:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/25/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/25/24 11:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========