| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v5icdm$17ej1$7@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:40:22 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v5icdm$17ej1$7@i2pn2.org> References: <v598l4$c4if$1@dont-email.me> <v5bjn9$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> <v5ibfc$2cko8$5@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:40:22 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1292897"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v5ibfc$2cko8$5@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 11703 Lines: 215 On 6/26/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========