Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)

From	Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups	comp.theory, sci.logic
Subject	Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)
Date	2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
Organization	i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID	<v46na1$3ifov$1@i2pn2.org> (permalink)
References	<v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me> <v43ib7$38hnd$1@dont-email.me> <v4628o$6ero$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/10/24 1:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 1:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 08.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott:
>>> Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed
>>> DD(DD) we must first see that the Sipser approved criteria
>>> have been met:
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>> stop running unless aborted then
>>>
>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>
>>>
>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
>>>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
>>>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>>>
>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>
>> Stopping at your first error. So, we can focus on it. Your are asking 
>> a question that contradicts itself.
>> A correct simulation of HH that aborts itself, should simulate up to 
>> the point where the simulated HH aborts. That is logically impossible. 
>> So, either it is a correct simulation and then we see that the 
>> simulated HH aborts and returns, or the simulation is incorrect, 
>> because it assumes incorrectly that things that happen (abort) do not 
>> happen.
>> A premature conclusion.
>>
>>
> 
> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*

So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a verified fact is 
just a LIE.

> 
> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
> 
> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same
> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions
> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below).

So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D correctly 
simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent statement for the behavior 
of the direct execution of the input as required by the Halting Problem, 
so you admit you have been LYING every time you imply that it is.

> 
> _D()
> [00000cfc](01)  55                      push ebp
> [00000cfd](02)  8bec                    mov ebp,esp
> [00000cff](03)  8b4508                  mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000d02](01)  50                      push eax       ; push D
> [00000d03](03)  8b4d08                  mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000d06](01)  51                      push ecx       ; push D
> [00000d07](05)  e800feffff              call 00000b0c  ; call H
> [00000d0c](03)  83c408                  add esp,+08
> [00000d0f](02)  85c0                    test eax,eax
> [00000d11](02)  7404                    jz 00000d17
> [00000d13](02)  33c0                    xor eax,eax
> [00000d15](02)  eb05                    jmp 00000d1c
> [00000d17](05)  b801000000              mov eax,00000001
> [00000d1c](01)  5d                      pop ebp
> [00000d1d](01)  c3                      ret
> Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]
> 
> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the
> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine
> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D*

No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly.

Your problem is that it turns out that the only way that a correct 
simulation by H to be an actual correct simulation that shows halting 
behavior, it can't answer and be a decider.

> 
> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
> The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.
> 
> 

But your H DOES ignore the CORRECT behavior of that instruction, as a 
correct simulation of that instruction (by what ever type of simulation 
you want to do) must either continue it trace inot the function H (which 
none of your publish traces of the resutls of the simulation H does do) 
if the simulation instruction level, or it must show the effective 
behavior of the actaul function H, which is to return 0 (since you claim 
you H is correct, and correct to return 0).

Neither of these is what your "correct simulation" of the input does, so 
it can not be a correct simulation of the input. Your H just doesn't 
"correctly simulate" that call instruction, but does invalid logic to 
conclude the wrong answer.

It seems impossible for you claim that you have looked at the trace of H 
acuallly doing the x86 instruction trace of H to show that it was 
correctly determining what you claim, as your "250 page" trace turns out 
not to be that trace, and you admit you didn't look at it closely, and 
you JUST think you figured out how to get such a trace out.

Thus, you could NOT have verified it 3 years ago.

So, you have just been caught in a LIE.

Thread

Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 13:47 -0500
  Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 14:49 -0500
    Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 16:32 -0400
  Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 16:32 -0400
  Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-09 08:33 +0200
    Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 07:21 -0500
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
    Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:13 -0500
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 10:48 +0300
        Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:09 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 11:02 +0300
            DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:24 -0500
              Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:46 -0400
              Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-12 10:20 +0300
                Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 10:17 -0500
                Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-15 15:03 +0300
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-15 14:59 +0300
    Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 00:17 -0500
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-10 09:09 +0200
        Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 08:52 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 15:35 +0000
            Proof that D correctly simulated by H has different behavior than D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:39 -0500
              Re: Proof that D correctly simulated by H has different behavior than D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:59 -0400
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-10 21:15 +0200
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:48 -0400
        Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 14:21 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-10 21:41 +0200
            Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 14:47 -0500
              Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-11 09:21 +0200
                D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:07 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 08:18 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 09:47 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 20:19 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 13:24 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 21:13 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 14:20 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 21:46 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 14:53 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-13 10:15 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 07:44 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-13 21:33 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 14:41 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-14 11:59 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 07:49 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-14 21:00 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 14:18 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-14 22:03 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 15:46 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-15 11:03 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 07:12 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-15 16:06 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:13 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 10:29 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-15 16:37 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:48 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:02 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-15 17:12 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:23 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:39 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-16 08:21 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 07:37 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-16 21:08 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 08:39 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-17 16:21 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 09:35 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-17 16:51 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-17 10:22 +0300
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 08:07 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 10:54 +0300
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 07:55 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-18 11:16 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 07:43 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-18 17:25 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 10:39 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-18 17:53 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 19:32 +0300
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 11:41 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:17 -0400
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
        Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 12:54 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 18:21 +0000
            Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 13:48 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400

csiph-web