Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!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 Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 13:41:47 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 70 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 20:41:47 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="38a6c8611b5b06dec5d677dcd047c039"; logging-data="2300250"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rrASlkcSEugsS041a9YnF" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:jTpeW2DZWwlgXd4ilKU2/YXXK0E= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4350 On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott wrote: >>> >>> [ .... ] >>> >>>> _DD() >>>> [00001e12] 55         push ebp >>>> [00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp >>>> [00001e15] 51         push ecx >>>> [00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08] >>>> [00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD >>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08] >>>> [00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD >>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH >>> >>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the >>>> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated >>>> by HH and simulated in the correct order. >>> >>> That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it?  Less than a >>> few >>> days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N >>> instructions" >>> simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N).  It seems that >>> the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your criterion. >>> >>> That now seems to have changed. >>> >> >> Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly >> improve my words on the basis of reviews. >> >> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever >> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH. >> >> _DD() >> [00001e12] 55         push ebp >> [00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp >> [00001e15] 51         push ecx >> [00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08] >> [00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD >> [00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08] >> [00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD >> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH >> >> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the >> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated >> by HH and simulated in the correct order. >> >> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior >> of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation >> of the above definition of correct simulation. >> > > And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider, More dishonest deflection. The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly executed DD(DD). -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer