Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106778 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-09 09:19 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-10 10:27 -0500 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 27 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:19 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:07 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 17:59 +0000
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 13:23 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 19:13 +0000
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:02 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:23 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:26 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:41 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:56 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:10 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:23 -0500
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:36 -0400
D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:48 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 23:09 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-10 08:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 15:33 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:44 -0400
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 08:40 +0000
Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:27 -0500
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case |
| Message-ID | <v46na5$3ifov$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106861 |
On 6/9/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 2:13 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void HHH(ptr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P, ptr I)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03 P(I);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04 return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06 07 void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09 HHH(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 13 int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15 HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus never halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HH(DD,DD) aborts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You chopped out the mandatory prerequisite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please go back and prove that you understand what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite recursion is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before proceeding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK then we are done talking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You instead could explain how you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can call a simulation that differs from the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution "correct".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or why H and HH are different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could but you refuse to go through the steps of the proof,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-at-a-time with mutual agreement at each step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not going to tolerate circular head games that never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result in any mutual agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I.E. Someone else is calling you out on your incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic, so you are threatening to take your ball and go home.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We must go through the steps one-at-a-time and have mutual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on each step to eliminate miscommunication intentional or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, when someone questions what you mean by something, you
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to clearify the meaning of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When someone "questions what you mean by something"
>>>>>>>>>>> by calling me a liar they may go to actual Hell.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I only call you after you repeat the same basic lie several
>>>>>>>>>> times after being corrected.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is a valid definition of a Liar, and you fit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION.
>>>>>>>>> STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then stop Lying!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I never have lied and you know it*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another Lie. (Read the message you trimed)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *THAT YOU REFUSE TO EVEN POINT OUT ANY 100% SPECIFIC MISTAKE*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another Lie. (Read the messsage you trimed)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *AND PERSIST IN CALLING ME A LIAR AFTER A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER*
>>>>>>> *WINS DEFAMATION CASES*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, since my words are correct, you have no case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you REALLY want to have to testify on the stand before a jury
>>>>>> of "normal" people and try to explain your idea to them and
>>>>>> convince tem that you are telling the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think you could stand the counter claims?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, Never *PROVEN*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And not by the right defintion of "Correctly SImulated" to claim
>>>>>> not-halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
>>>>>>> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That D is correctly simulated by H is proved by the fact that
>>>>>>> the x86 source-code of D exactly matches the two execution
>>>>>>> traces that I provided. *It is much easier to see in Google Groups*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, remember, you still havn't correctly simulated the call H
>>>>>> instruction, and have instructions listed that were never actual
>>>>>> gotten to again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that found the spot in the source-code to insert the
>>>>> display of the simulated lines of H simulated by H. This
>>>>> might only be 100 pages of output.
>>>>
>>>> So do it. And then provide an analysis where you show how you PROVE
>>>> your statement. (And be clear exactly what statement you are
>>>> claiming to prove)
>>>>
>>> Perhaps you have always been hiding your lack of sufficient
>>> technical competence?
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>>> This has ALWAYS proved that D is correctly simulated by H.
>>
>> Nope, Since D(D) Halts, the answer of 0 is NOT correct, and H has NOT
>> proven that no such simulation can halt.
>>
>
> *That you keep ignoring this is less than no rebuttal at all*
> 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, you are admitting that in your mind it is impossible for "the input
correctly simuated by H" to be the equivalent to "The derect execution
of the input" and thus can not be used as a measurement criteria for a
Halt Decider, which must do the later.
I guess you are pointing out that you work of the last 20 years is just
based on Lies, or at the minimum, a fatal mistake that you just refused
to acknoledge.
>
> _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*
>
Do, you are admitting that your H, to be answering the Halting Question,
which IS about the behavior of the directly executed D(D), must not
correctly simulate its input, so you have been lying that your H is a
correct halt decider.
Maybe you have a POOP decider, that uses your worthless criteria, but no
one cares about that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 08:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case |
| Message-ID | <v46drm$13ke$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #106851 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote: [ .... ] >>> THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION. >>> STOP CALLING ME A LIAR. >> Then stop Lying! > *I never have lied and you know it* You have frequently lied. All these times when you have called your notions "verified facts", but have been unable to show the verification. All these other times when you have said something is "undeniably proven" or the like, and there is no proof in sight. And there was that little lie when you said you had a fully worked out turing machine which contradicted a well known proof of the Halting Theorem. > *THAT YOU REFUSE TO EVEN POINT OUT ANY 100% SPECIFIC MISTAKE* > *AND PERSIST IN CALLING ME A LIAR AFTER A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER* > *WINS DEFAMATION CASES* You have failed to withdraw these lies, or apologize for them. The only way you are not a liar might be that your grasp of truth is so tenuous that you are unable to distinguish truth from falsehood. Whether that would win you a defamation case is somewhat questionable. > *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS* > *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS* > *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS* As an example you have insisted that you have proven the absurdity that a correctly simulated machine D has a different behaviour from that same machine running. By the simple meaning of words, this cannot be true. It is a lie. > That D is correctly simulated by H is proved by the fact that the x86 > source-code of D exactly matches the two execution traces that I > provided. That's a proof? Maybe if the two execution traces, simulated and running, matched, there might be something to go on. But that would only apply to a specific H and its D; you still have to prove it for the general case. [ .... ] > -- > Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 09:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years |
| Message-ID | <v4737k$ggn5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106873 |
On 6/10/2024 3:35 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote: > > [ .... ] > >>>> THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION. >>>> STOP CALLING ME A LIAR. > >>> Then stop Lying! > >> *I never have lied and you know it* > > You have frequently lied. All these times when you have called your > notions "verified facts", They have been verified facts for three years and everyone simply ignored the verification. *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* 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). _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* H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D. The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 15:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years |
| Message-ID | <v476cr$3ipmi$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106887 |
Am Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:39:48 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/10/2024 3:35 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote: > 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). That doesn't make any sense. Surely the direct execution must be correct. > _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* D(D) does not ignore the call to H(D, D), whether it is simulated or not. > H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D. > The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 21:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years |
| Message-ID | <v4auhs$3nf9m$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106887 |
On 6/10/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/10/2024 3:35 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote: >> >> [ .... ] >> >>>>> THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION. >>>>> STOP CALLING ME A LIAR. >> >>>> Then stop Lying! >> >>> *I never have lied and you know it* >> >> You have frequently lied. All these times when you have called your >> notions "verified facts", > > They have been verified facts for three years and everyone > simply ignored the verification. > > *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* > > 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). Which shows that H can not have actually correctly fully simulated the input, and thus its simulation doesn't tell us about halting. > > _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* Nope. In fact, if H ignores that instruction, it BY YOUR DEFINITION hasn't done a correct simulation. > > H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D. > The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D. > No it isn't. A correct simulation thorugh the call H must show the simulation of the function H. THis has not been shown, so you can't have a "verifited" fact about it, just further proving that "verified by Olcott" can't be taken as verified at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 08:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v46e6f$3i580$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106835 |
Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 19:02:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/9/2024 2:13 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01 void HHH(ptr
>>>>> P, ptr I)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 P(I);
>>>>> 04 return;
>>>>> 05 }
>>>>> 06 07 void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>> 08 {
>>>>> 09 HHH(x, x);
>>>>> 10 return;
>>>>> 11 }
>>>>> 12 13 int main()
>>>>> 14 {
>>>>> 15 HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>> 16 }
>>>>>
>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
>>>>> statement thus never halt.
>>>>> Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when HH(DD,DD) aborts
>>>>> its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
>>> Please go back and prove that you understand what infinite recursion
>>> is before proceeding.
>> Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you.
> OK then we are done talking.
How could I even do that? What would convince you?
Ignoring me is not an argument.
>> You instead could explain how you can call a simulation that differs
>> from the direct execution "correct".
>> Or why H and HH are different.
> I could but you refuse to go through the steps of the proof,
> one-at-a-time with mutual agreement at each step.
Several times I have asked for the other steps.
> I am not going to tolerate circular head games that never result in any
> mutual agreement.
What head games?
--
joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 10:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4761c$ggn5$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106875 |
On 6/10/2024 3:40 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 19:02:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/9/2024 2:13 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01 void HHH(ptr
>>>>>> P, ptr I)
>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>> 03 P(I);
>>>>>> 04 return;
>>>>>> 05 }
>>>>>> 06 07 void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>>> 08 {
>>>>>> 09 HHH(x, x);
>>>>>> 10 return;
>>>>>> 11 }
>>>>>> 12 13 int main()
>>>>>> 14 {
>>>>>> 15 HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>>> 16 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own return
>>>>>> statement thus never halt.
>>>>>> Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when HH(DD,DD) aborts
>>>>>> its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
>>>> Please go back and prove that you understand what infinite recursion
>>>> is before proceeding.
>>> Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you.
>> OK then we are done talking.
> How could I even do that? What would convince you?
> Ignoring me is not an argument.
>
>>> You instead could explain how you can call a simulation that differs
>>> from the direct execution "correct".
>>> Or why H and HH are different.
>> I could but you refuse to go through the steps of the proof,
>> one-at-a-time with mutual agreement at each step.
>
> Several times I have asked for the other steps.
>
If we move beyond step (1) without getting complete closure
on step (1) our dialogue is a cyclic directed graph that never
achieves closure on any point. The dialogue must be restricted
to a decision tree and not allowed to become circular.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web