Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:52:32 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 111 Message-ID: References: <_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 22:52:32 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99ea1b6838dd1404bad406fc122dbf0f"; logging-data="2965250"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+yiSHsjN/yWENUEeFch2Nm" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Xay4YUQYd95b58hdvMUDvFYdQoY= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6719 On 6/8/2024 3:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/8/24 4:34 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/8/2024 3:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/8/24 1:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/8/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/8/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/8/2024 10:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/8/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I HAVE pointed out what is missing, ANY set of >>>>>>>>>>> truth-perserving operations from the accepted facts (which >>>>>>>>>>> will of course need to name the fact they are working from) >>>>>>>>>>> to your conclusion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The accepted facts are here >>>>>>>>>> (a) The x86 language >>>>>>>>>> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> {The proof that No DDD correctly emulated by any x86 >>>>>>>>>>   emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6] instruction} >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, how do you show this claim? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you have a tracing of the full INFINITE SET of possible Hs? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is the set of possible execution traces of DDD correctly >>>>>>>>>> emulated by x86 emulator HH on the basis of the above >>>>>>>>>> accepted facts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you are just clueless about these technical details >>>>>>>>>> are are trying to hide this with pure bluster. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>> [00001de2] 55         push ebp >>>>>>>>>> [00001de3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>> [00001de5] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>> [00001de8] 50         push eax         ; push DD >>>>>>>>>> [00001de9] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>>>>>>>> [00001dec] 51         push ecx         ; push DD >>>>>>>>>> [00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382    ; call HH >>>>>>>>>> [00001df2] 83c408     add esp,+08 >>>>>>>>>> [00001df5] 5d         pop ebp >>>>>>>>>> [00001df6] c3         ret >>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You keep disagreeing with the fact that DDD correctly >>>>>>>>>> emulated by x86 emulator HH only has one single correct >>>>>>>>>> execution trace of repeating the fist seven lines until >>>>>>>>>> out-of-memory error. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But that is an INCORRECT trace per your definition, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The call HH instruction MUST be simulated into HH because that >>>>>>>>> IS the behavior of the x86 instruction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Did I ever say that it is not? >>>>>>>> For the above DDD correctly emulated by x86 emulator HH >>>>>>>> the first seven instructions of DD keep repeating because >>>>>>>> DDD keeps calling HH(DDD,DDD) to emulate itself again and >>>>>>>> again until HH/DDD hits out-of-memory exception. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the x86 emulation of the code must go into HH(DDD,DDD) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is pretty stupid to assume otherwise when HH is >>>>>> stipulated to be an x86 emulator. >>>>> >>>>> Right, so why did you say otherwise? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I never said otherwise you simply "read" meanings that I didn't say. >>>> this thread: [Should I quit Richard at this point?] >>>> stands alone and should not be interpreted within the >>>> context of anything else that I ever said. >>> >>> So, we are NOT to use your previous statements for earlier posts? >>> >>> You keep on changing you mind, and not being clear. That shows your >>> deceitful nature. >>> >> I must increasing narrow the focus of attention to ever >> get any closure on as many as one single point. >> >> The one point now is that DD correctly simulated by HH >> proves that HH is correct to reject DD as non-halting. > > Which is incorrect, because you are using the wrong definition of > correct simulation. > >> >> For three years every reviewer has essentially insisted that the >> correct measure of the behavior of DD is DD incorrectly simulated >> by HH. The behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) cannot possibly >> be achieved by DD correctly simulated by HH as the x86 machine-code >> of DD *conclusively proves BEYOND ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT* >> > Nope, and if that is what your though, you are just an idiot. > When one disagrees with the execution trace that x86 code specifies one is essentially doing the same thing as disagreeing with arithmetic. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer