Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106862 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-12 08:24 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 373 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 08:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 12:59 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 12:00 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:36 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 15:25 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 17:06 +0000
Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 12:31 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 21:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 23:31 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 07:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 18:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 18:23 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-12 02:20 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 19:57 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:34 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 11:50 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 18:59 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:41 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:19 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:50 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:57 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:24 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:58 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 10:32 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:34 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 21:24 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 20:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:04 -0400
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 22:14 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 23:13 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 07:39 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 08:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-14 15:54 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 12:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 19:27 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 11:34 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 07:21 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-15 15:33 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 08:24 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-16 12:15 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 07:59 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-17 10:10 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 07:51 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 10:44 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 07:46 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 18:36 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 10:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 19:27 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 11:36 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-19 11:07 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-19 08:37 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-20 08:04 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 00:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-20 17:42 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 10:04 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-20 16:16 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 11:28 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-21 10:05 +0200
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:13 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:27 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 21:55 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 21:04 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 22:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 21:46 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 22:59 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 22:30 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 23:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 23:01 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 11:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:06 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:26 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:38 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:18 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 14:42 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:53 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:05 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:19 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:33 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:45 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 16:00 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 15:52 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 17:10 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 16:25 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 17:46 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 17:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 18:58 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:11 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 19:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:27 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 19:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 22:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 04:24 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:31 -0500
Re: Dogma -- other deciders joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 08:59 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:03 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 08:59 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 04:09 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:18 -0500
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 08:47 +0000
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:08 -0500
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 14:36 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:05 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:35 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-22 12:08 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 07:58 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:22 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:49 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-21 10:16 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:21 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:43 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-22 14:06 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-22 20:39 +0200
DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:47 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-22 20:53 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 15:11 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 09:22 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 08:16 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 13:46 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 09:03 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 14:32 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 16:28 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 20:25 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-25 15:04 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 09:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 14:46 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:45 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:05 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:23 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:55 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 23:35 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 07:02 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 08:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 18:46 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:55 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 19:20 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 20:42 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 02:15 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 02:30 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 21:52 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 03:06 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:38 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:39 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:51 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:16 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:34 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 08:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:13 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:39 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:15 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:30 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:04 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 03:16 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-26 11:41 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 07:58 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-27 10:36 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:10 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-27 18:35 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 11:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-27 17:25 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 12:38 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-28 12:25 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 10:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-28 16:21 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-29 11:05 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-28 11:30 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 07:40 -0500
Re: Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-28 13:04 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-28 23:49 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-29 11:10 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-25 16:41 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 10:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 19:27 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 19:34 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 21:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 20:59 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:16 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:25 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:48 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:52 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:43 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:06 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:17 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:50 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 22:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:48 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 22:55 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 06:56 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 08:35 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:23 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 10:46 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:03 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:18 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:41 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:11 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:24 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:39 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:50 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:04 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:23 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:33 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 13:03 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 14:10 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 14:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:06 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 18:28 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 19:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 21:11 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:57 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 22:32 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 22:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 08:21 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 11:48 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 07:26 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:09 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:17 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:24 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-14 08:38 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 07:34 -0500
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:37 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:00 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:07 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:12 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:54 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 16:11 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:19 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:26 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:12 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:23 -0500
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:57 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:17 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 14:08 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 13:55 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:15 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 18:40 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:57 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 19:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 21:13 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 22:02 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 22:22 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-16 11:34 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 07:53 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 08:04 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:05 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 07:55 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2024-06-13 14:52 +0100
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄ 🏳️🌈D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules🏳️🌈 ❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄ (Was: 🏳️🌈D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules🏳️🌈) 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈Jen🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmender 💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2024-06-13 14:51 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 21:28 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:42 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:52 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 07:58 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 16:53 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 12:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- simulating vs. deciding joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:38 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- simulating vs. deciding olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 07:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 11:57 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:03 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:25 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 19:37 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:52 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:27 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:36 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:50 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:25 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:48 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:08 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:26 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:49 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 23:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:23 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:37 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:19 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:19 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:22 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:12 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:06 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 13:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:31 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:27 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:30 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:49 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:10 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-13 14:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 10:08 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:26 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 07:05 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 19:27 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 19:40 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 21:58 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:05 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:35 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- specification joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:09 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 08:24 +0200
Page 1 of 19 [1] 2 3 … 19 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- |
| Message-ID | <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> |
*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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 08:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v46drt$3i580$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106862 |
Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ > > THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as > the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions of D to be > incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below). > > _D() > [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp > [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D > [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 > [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax > [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c > [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 > [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp > [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in > bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] > > In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the directly > executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine address > [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D* I don't understand. Does D(D) ignore the call to H(D,D)? > H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D. > The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 12:59 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v46ipg$bqg4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106874 |
On 2024-06-10 08:35:09 +0000, joes said: > Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> 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* > I don't understand. Does D(D) ignore the call to H(D,D)? > >> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D. >> The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D. What instructions does H use to output that trace and how those instructions are simulated when H is simulated? And why does H output any traces? That is not required by its specification or purpose. If traces are needed for some other purpose it would be better to let the execution environment make the traces. If your normal execution environment cannot make them then use ontother one that can, e.g. a simulator. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 10:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v476c3$ggn5$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106877 |
On 6/10/2024 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-10 08:35:09 +0000, joes said:
>
>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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*
>> I don't understand. Does D(D) ignore the call to H(D,D)?
>>
>>> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
>>> The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.
>
> What instructions does H use to output that trace and how those
I don't remember it has been two years.
I am looking into this again.
> instructions are simulated when H is simulated?
>
They are simulated by
u32 DebugStep(Registers* master_state,
Registers* slave_state, Decoded_Line_Of_Code* decoded)
{ return 0; }
This depends on libx86emu.
> And why does H output any traces? That is not required by its
The traces are output so that people can directly see the
same infinite recursion behavior pattern that H sees and
thus know that H really is required to abort ts simulation.
> specification or purpose. If traces are needed for some other
> purpose it would be better to let the execution environment
> make the traces. If your normal execution environment cannot
> make them then use ontother one that can, e.g. a simulator.
>
--
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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 12:00 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v493ml$vlup$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106898 |
On 2024-06-10 15:33:23 +0000, olcott said:
> On 6/10/2024 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-10 08:35:09 +0000, joes said:
>>
>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> 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*
>>> I don't understand. Does D(D) ignore the call to H(D,D)?
>>>
>>>> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
>>>> The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.
>>
>> What instructions does H use to output that trace and how those
>
> I don't remember it has been two years.
> I am looking into this again.
>
>> instructions are simulated when H is simulated?
>>
>
> They are simulated by
> u32 DebugStep(Registers* master_state,
> Registers* slave_state, Decoded_Line_Of_Code* decoded)
> { return 0; }
>
> This depends on libx86emu.
>
>> And why does H output any traces? That is not required by its
>
> The traces are output so that people can directly see the
> same infinite recursion behavior pattern that H sees and
> thus know that H really is required to abort ts simulation.
Looks like they don't serve that purpose. Perhaps you should
change something.
>> specification or purpose. If traces are needed for some other
>> purpose it would be better to let the execution environment
>> make the traces. If your normal execution environment cannot
>> make them then use ontother one that can, e.g. a simulator.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4a0dr$157ic$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106933 |
On 6/11/2024 4:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-10 15:33:23 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 6/10/2024 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-10 08:35:09 +0000, joes said:
>>>
>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> 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*
>>>> I don't understand. Does D(D) ignore the call to H(D,D)?
>>>>
>>>>> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
>>>>> The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.
>>>
>>> What instructions does H use to output that trace and how those
>>
>> I don't remember it has been two years.
>> I am looking into this again.
>>
>>> instructions are simulated when H is simulated?
>>>
>>
>> They are simulated by
>> u32 DebugStep(Registers* master_state,
>> Registers* slave_state, Decoded_Line_Of_Code* decoded)
>> { return 0; }
>>
>> This depends on libx86emu.
>>
>>> And why does H output any traces? That is not required by its
>>
>> The traces are output so that people can directly see the
>> same infinite recursion behavior pattern that H sees and
>> thus know that H really is required to abort ts simulation.
>
> Looks like they don't serve that purpose. Perhaps you should
> change something.
*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
_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]
It is impossible for D correctly simulated by H to ever reach
its simulated final state at its own machine address [00000d1d].
People disagree with this by changing the subject to D not simulated
by H as all. They have been indoctrinated into believing that this
strawman deception is correct yet
cannot possibly show the detailed steps of how D correctly simulated
by H can possibly reach its own simulated machine address of [00000d1d].
*Here are the steps that prove that I am correct*
(1) Executed H simulates the first seven instructions of D.
(2) Simulated D calls simulated H(D,D) to simulate itself again.
(3) Simulated H simulates the first seven instructions of simulated
simulated D.
(4) Simulated simulated D simulated by simulated H calls
simulated simulated H(D,D) to simulate itself again.
*HERE ARE ALL OF CONCRETE DETAILS OF THAT*
*Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:cfc*
[00000cfc][00211839][0021183d](01) 55 push ebp ; begin D
[00000cfd][00211839][0021183d](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000cff][00211839][0021183d](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d02][00211835][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D
[00000d03][00211835][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d06][00211831][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D
[00000d07][0021182d][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H
*This call to H is simulated by directly executed H*
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== =============== =============
[00000cfc][0025c261][0025c265](01) 55 push ebp ; begin D
[00000cfd][0025c261][0025c265](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000cff][0025c261][0025c265](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d02][0025c25d][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D
[00000d03][0025c25d][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d06][0025c259][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D
[00000d07][0025c255][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H
*This call to H would be simulated by simulated executed H*
*Infinitely Nested Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped*
--
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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 09:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v4730r$ggn5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106874 |
On 6/10/2024 3:35 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 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*
>
> I don't understand. Does D(D) ignore the call to H(D,D)?
>
H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.
The directly executed D(D) reaps the benefit of D correctly
simulated by H proving that *its input never halts*
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:cfc
..[00000cfc][00211839][0021183d](01) 55 push ebp
..[00000cfd][00211839][0021183d](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
..[00000cff][00211839][0021183d](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
..[00000d02][00211835][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D
..[00000d03][00211835][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
..[00000d06][00211831][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D
..[00000d07][0021182d][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H
This call to H is simulated H.
We can tell that it is the simulated H is providing this
trace because it has a different virtual machine stack.
*The simulated H derives this execution trace of D*
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== =============== =============
..[00000cfc][0025c261][0025c265](01) 55 push ebp
..[00000cfd][0025c261][0025c265](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
..[00000cff][0025c261][0025c265](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
..[00000d02][0025c25d][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D
..[00000d03][0025c25d][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
..[00000d06][0025c259][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D
..[00000d07][0025c255][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H
Infinitely Nested Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
Because the H(D,D) that D(D) calls correctly recognizes the its input
DOES NOT HALT, it correctly aborts the simulation of this input causing
the directly executed D(D) to halt.
I proved that D simulated by H can only have the same behavior as the
directly executed D(D) when D is simulated by H incorrectly.
This requires D simulated by H to skip over the machine address
[00000d07] and not call H(D,D) to simulate itself again.
D simulated by H does not do that. It simulates itself simulating 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 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v475sv$3ipmi$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106886 |
Am Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:36:09 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/10/2024 3:35 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> 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). The only correct simulation must simulate incorrectly? Wat. >>> 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* >> I don't understand. Does D(D) ignore the call to H(D,D)? > H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D. > The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D. > > The directly executed D(D) reaps the benefit of D simulated by > H proving that *its input never halts* > > Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:cfc > ..[00000cfc][00211839][0021183d](01) 55 push ebp > ..[00000cfd][00211839][0021183d](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > ..[00000cff][00211839][0021183d](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > ..[00000d02][00211835][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D > ..[00000d03][00211835][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > ..[00000d06][00211831][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > ..[00000d07][0021182d][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > This call to H is simulated H. > We can tell that it is the simulated H is providing this trace because > it has a different virtual machine stack. > *The simulated H derives this execution trace of D* > machine stack stack machine assembly address > address data code language ======== ======== > ======== =============== ============= > ..[00000cfc][0025c261][0025c265](01) 55 push ebp > ..[00000cfd][0025c261][0025c265](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > ..[00000cff][0025c261][0025c265](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > ..[00000d02][0025c25d][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D > ..[00000d03][0025c25d][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > ..[00000d06][0025c259][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > ..[00000d07][0025c255][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > Infinitely Nested Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped > > Because the H(D,D) that D(D) calls recognizes the its input > DOES NOT HALT, it aborts the simulation of this input causing > the directly executed D(D) to halt. How can H report "non-halting" when D(D) halts? > I proved that D simulated by H can only have the same behavior as the > directly executed D(D) when D is simulated by H incorrectly. You've got it the wrong way around. A simulation must have the same behaviour. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 10:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v476ic$ggn5$13@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106896 |
On 6/10/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote: > Am Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:36:09 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/10/2024 3:35 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>> 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). > The only correct simulation must simulate incorrectly? Wat. > Try carefully studying those words again and again until you see how your paraphrase is wrong. Perhaps your paraphrase was wrong on purpose? >>>> 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* >>> I don't understand. Does D(D) ignore the call to H(D,D)? >> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D. >> The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D. >> >> The directly executed D(D) reaps the benefit of D simulated by >> H proving that *its input never halts* >> >> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:cfc >> ..[00000cfc][00211839][0021183d](01) 55 push ebp >> ..[00000cfd][00211839][0021183d](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp >> ..[00000cff][00211839][0021183d](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >> ..[00000d02][00211835][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D >> ..[00000d03][00211835][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >> ..[00000d06][00211831][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D >> ..[00000d07][0021182d][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H >> This call to H is simulated H. >> We can tell that it is the simulated H is providing this trace because >> it has a different virtual machine stack. >> *The simulated H derives this execution trace of D* >> machine stack stack machine assembly address >> address data code language ======== ======== >> ======== =============== ============= >> ..[00000cfc][0025c261][0025c265](01) 55 push ebp >> ..[00000cfd][0025c261][0025c265](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp >> ..[00000cff][0025c261][0025c265](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >> ..[00000d02][0025c25d][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D >> ..[00000d03][0025c25d][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >> ..[00000d06][0025c259][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D >> ..[00000d07][0025c255][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H >> Infinitely Nested Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped >> >> Because the H(D,D) that D(D) calls recognizes the its input >> DOES NOT HALT, it aborts the simulation of this input causing >> the directly executed D(D) to halt. > How can H report "non-halting" when D(D) halts? > >> I proved that D simulated by H can only have the same behavior as the >> directly executed D(D) when D is simulated by H incorrectly. > You've got it the wrong way around. A simulation must have the same > behaviour. > I proved otherwise. Maybe the proof is simply over-your-head? -- 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 17:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- |
| Message-ID | <v47bpt$3ipmi$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106901 |
Am Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:36:44 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/10/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:36:09 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/10/2024 3:35 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> >>>>> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same behavior >>>>> as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions of D to be >>>>> incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below). >> The only correct simulation must simulate incorrectly? Wat. > Try carefully studying those words again and again until you see how > your paraphrase is wrong. Perhaps you can paraphrase it better? A simulator MUST have the same behaviour. >>> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D. >>> The directly executed D(D) reaps the benefit of D simulated by H >>> proving that *its input never halts* If that simulation is right, D(D) never halts. >>> Because the H(D,D) that D(D) calls recognizes the its input DOES NOT >>> HALT, it aborts the simulation of this input causing the directly >>> executed D(D) to halt. Simulating something most definitely does NOT cause any change in its behaviour. If the abortion causes D to halt, how could H detect D not to? If D halts, it does so whether it is simulated or not. >> How can H report "non-halting" when D(D) halts? >>> I proved that D simulated by H can only have the same behavior as the >>> directly executed D(D) when D is simulated by H incorrectly. >> You've got it the wrong way around. A simulation must have the same >> behaviour. > I proved otherwise. Maybe the proof is simply over-your-head? Your simulator does not simulate if it has different behaviour. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 12:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- |
| Message-ID | <v47d8q$i7j4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106904 |
On 6/10/2024 12:06 PM, joes wrote: > Am Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:36:44 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/10/2024 10:25 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:36:09 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/10/2024 3:35 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>>>>> 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). >>> The only correct simulation must simulate incorrectly? Wat. >> Try carefully studying those words again and again until you see how >> your paraphrase is wrong. > Perhaps you can paraphrase it better? > A simulator MUST have the same behaviour. > That you do not look at my proof or have insufficient understanding of the ax8 language counts for no rebuttal at all. Saying that I am wrong without looking at my proof or failing to understand the x86 language is less than no rebuttal at all. >>>> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D. >>>> The directly executed D(D) reaps the benefit of D simulated by H >>>> proving that *its input never halts* > If that simulation is right, D(D) never halts. > >>>> Because the H(D,D) that D(D) calls recognizes the its input DOES NOT >>>> HALT, it aborts the simulation of this input causing the directly >>>> executed D(D) to halt. > Simulating something most definitely does NOT cause any change in > its behaviour. > If the abortion causes D to halt, how could H detect D not to? > If D halts, it does so whether it is simulated or not. It is two different levels of what is essentially infinite recursion that have different behavior. If you don't understand infinite recursion then you will never understand that: when the second recursive call of infinite recursion must be aborted to prevent infinite execution then first recursive call will halt. Failing to understand infinite recursion is no rebuttal at all. >>> How can H report "non-halting" when D(D) halts? > It might simply be over your head. That is why I asked if you understand infinite recursion. >>>> I proved that D simulated by H can only have the same behavior as the >>>> directly executed D(D) when D is simulated by H incorrectly. >>> You've got it the wrong way around. A simulation must have the same >>> behaviour. >> I proved otherwise. Maybe the proof is simply over-your-head? > Your simulator does not simulate if it has different behaviour. > It might simply be over your head. That is why I asked if you understand infinite recursion. -- 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 | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v46na7$3ifov$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106862 |
On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: > *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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 21:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error |
| Message-ID | <v48be9$rgsh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106881 |
On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >> *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. > *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* *and simulates H simulating H* -- 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 | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error |
| Message-ID | <v48gh6$3kcoe$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106915 |
On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>> *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. >> > > *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* > *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* > *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* > *and simulates H simulating H* > No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, and the only H you have show that correctly simulates the input to show it to be non-halting is the version of H that never aborts. I am also pointing lut that as far as you have proviced evidence, NONE of you Hs have actually correctly simulated the input per your definition, as NONE of them have simulated that call H into H as required. And you have admitted that you haven't ever produced (until maybe very recently) an output clearly showing that it did. So, your claim has not be "verified".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 23:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error |
| Message-ID | <v48jv2$se9c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106919 |
On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> *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. >>> >> >> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* >> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* >> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* >> *and simulates H simulating H* >> > > No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, *This H does do it* D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D as the above line of code requires. The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly simulated by H. -- 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 | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 07:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error |
| Message-ID | <v49dge$3kcoe$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106920 |
On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> *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. >>>> >>> >>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* >>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* >>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* >>> *and simulates H simulating H* >>> >> >> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, > > *This H does do it* > D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D > as the above line of code requires. > > The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code > thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly > simulated by H. > WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return statement? We KNOW that when D(D) will be directly executed, and it calls H(D,D) just like main did, that H(D,D) will return 0, and thus D(D) will reach its final return. Thus, H is just wrong about the direct execution of its input. For any input that is actually based on the Linz proof, if the decider that the input program calls says its input is non-halting, that input program will halt. H, to be able to say it "correctly simulated" the input, must either simulate the call instructions, and all the instructions in H (and never again see any instructions of D, unless it gets to the point of simulating H's return). And, to be able to correctly say that the input is non-halting, it needs to be able to ACTUALLY PROVE that the trace it has seen can only come from programs that are non-halting. THus, H can NOT abort its simulation before the call to H, and return non-halting, as it knows (or should know if it isn't programmed by an idiot) that this means that the CALL H it say will return, but it has no idea what will happen after that, so it can not prove the input is non-halting. It might be able to prove non-POOPing, with POOP being defined as simulatable by the decider to a final state, but that isn't a legal "function" for a decider since there is no such mathematical function for it to try to compute the mapping of. (Said function would need to take a triple, of descritions of Decider, Machine, and input, and would be asking if a given decider could answer the question, not THIS decider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 12:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4a0hs$157ic$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106937 |
On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that*
>>>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior*
>>>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction*
>>>> *and simulates H simulating H*
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it,
>>
>> *This H does do it*
>> D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D
>> as the above line of code requires.
>>
>> The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code
>> thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly
>> simulated by H.
>>
>
> WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return statement?
>
That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year.
*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
_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]
It is impossible for D correctly simulated by H to ever reach
its simulated final state at its own machine address [00000d1d].
People disagree with this by changing the subject to D not simulated
by H as all. They have been indoctrinated into believing that this
strawman deception is correct yet
cannot possibly show the detailed steps of how D correctly simulated
by H can possibly reach its own simulated machine address of [00000d1d].
*Here are the steps that prove that I am correct*
(1) Executed H simulates the first seven instructions of D.
(2) Simulated D calls simulated H(D,D) to simulate itself again.
(3) Simulated H simulates the first seven instructions of simulated
simulated D.
(4) Simulated simulated D simulated by simulated H calls
simulated simulated H(D,D) to simulate itself again.
*HERE ARE ALL OF CONCRETE DETAILS OF THAT*
*Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:cfc*
[00000cfc][00211839][0021183d](01) 55 push ebp ; begin D
[00000cfd][00211839][0021183d](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000cff][00211839][0021183d](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d02][00211835][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D
[00000d03][00211835][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d06][00211831][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D
[00000d07][0021182d][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H
*This call to H is simulated by directly executed H*
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== =============== =============
[00000cfc][0025c261][0025c265](01) 55 push ebp ; begin D
[00000cfd][0025c261][0025c265](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000cff][0025c261][0025c265](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d02][0025c25d][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D
[00000d03][0025c25d][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d06][0025c259][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D
[00000d07][0025c255][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H
*This call to H would be simulated by simulated executed H*
*Infinitely Nested Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped*
--
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 | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 18:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4ak5o$3kcoe$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106941 |
On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> *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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* >>>>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* >>>>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* >>>>> *and simulates H simulating H* >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, >>> >>> *This H does do it* >>> D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D >>> as the above line of code requires. >>> >>> The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code >>> thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly >>> simulated by H. >>> >> >> WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return >> statement? >> > > That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year. > > *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* WRONG. *YOU* have verified that the directly executed D(D) will reach its return statement. > > On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ > > _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] > > It is impossible for D correctly simulated by H to ever reach > its simulated final state at its own machine address [00000d1d]. But that isn't the question, we were talking aboiut the direct exection of D(D). To quote you from above: " The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code" Which is just a wrong stateement that you are now trying to do a dishonest dodge to diflect from. > > People disagree with this by changing the subject to D not simulated > by H as all. They have been indoctrinated into believing that this > strawman deception is correct yet No, *YOU* are changing the subject, perhaps because you accidentally stumbled on a land mine and mistakenly got yourself onto the actual question that you have been avoiding, > > cannot possibly show the detailed steps of how D correctly simulated > by H can possibly reach its own simulated machine address of [00000d1d]. > *Here are the steps that prove that I am correct* Because no one cares about your D only partially simulated by H, as it doesn't actual answer any question that people care about. > > (1) Executed H simulates the first seven instructions of D. > > (2) Simulated D calls simulated H(D,D) to simulate itself again. > > (3) Simulated H simulates the first seven instructions of simulated > simulated D. Except that this is NOT what a correct simulation of the input to H(D,D) should be simulating > > (4) Simulated simulated D simulated by simulated H calls > simulated simulated H(D,D) to simulate itself again. > > *HERE ARE ALL OF CONCRETE DETAILS OF THAT* > *Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:cfc* > [00000cfc][00211839][0021183d](01) 55 push ebp ; begin D > [00000cfd][00211839][0021183d](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000cff][00211839][0021183d](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d02][00211835][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D > [00000d03][00211835][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d06][00211831][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > [00000d07][0021182d][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > *This call to H is simulated by directly executed H* > > machine stack stack machine assembly > address address data code language > ======== ======== ======== =============== ============= > [00000cfc][0025c261][0025c265](01) 55 push ebp ; begin D > [00000cfd][0025c261][0025c265](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000cff][0025c261][0025c265](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d02][0025c25d][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D > [00000d03][0025c25d][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d06][0025c259][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > [00000d07][0025c255][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > *This call to H would be simulated by simulated executed H* Which means it is NOT a trace of the sumulation of the input to the orginal H(D,D), so not relevlent to the quesiton. So the ONLY simulation that you have show FAILS to meet youer own definiton of what a correct simulation would be, so you are just showing that your logic is just flawed. Note, replacing the simulation of the simulator with the simulation it is doing is NOT correct per your definition, and can only be correct if the simulator is ACTUALLY unconditinal, which yours is not, and thus the simulation you have shown is just INCORRECT, and you LIE in your claims that it is correct. > *Infinitely Nested Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped* > But it ISN'T "Infintely Nested CORRECT Simulation", as it is a FACT that the CORRECT simulation of the input, for the D calling the H that actually exists, that answers, will show, that after H(D,D) aborted it simulaiton, that the continulation of that simulation will see the simulated H(D,D) also abort its simulation and return to the simulated D(D) and halt. Thus, all H showed was that it didn't simulate it input to the final state, that it would reach with a more complete simulation. The logic to call in "infintitely recursive" is INVALID as it assumes that the H(D,D) called by D(D) is a DIFFERENT funciton than that doing the simulation, so your H LIES (because YOU LIE) about what it is actually treating its input. As you have previously said, looking at the wrong input that isn't what was actually given just make the person do that a LIAR. SO you are admitting that is what you are. Your H INCORRECTLY, and intentionally DECEPTIVELY, treats its input as not the inptut it actually is, but something else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 18:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4am8r$19edk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106945 |
On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> *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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* >>>>>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* >>>>>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* >>>>>> *and simulates H simulating H* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, >>>> >>>> *This H does do it* >>>> D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D >>>> as the above line of code requires. >>>> >>>> The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code >>>> thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly >>>> simulated by H. >>>> >>> >>> WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return >>> statement? >>> >> >> That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year. >> >> *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* > > WRONG. > > *YOU* have verified that the directly executed D(D) will reach its > return statement. It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the business of H. We were going to get to that point after you quit your THREE YEARS OF STRAW-MAN DECEPTION. -- 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 | Python <python@invalid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 02:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4apjs$19rnv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106948 |
Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : ... > It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider > what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the > business of H. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 19 [1] 2 3 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web