Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.theory, sci.logic
Subject	Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case
Date	2024-06-09 22:21 -0500
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<v45rf6$41qf$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(14 earlier) <v45nlg$3h641$5@i2pn2.org> <v45p0t$35nk$1@dont-email.me> <v45pbs$3h641$6@i2pn2.org> <v45pqp$3ph0$2@dont-email.me> <v45qpe$3h642$4@i2pn2.org>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/9/2024 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/9/24 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 9:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/9/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 8:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 7:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 2:13 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 13:23:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 12:59 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 11:07:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); // pointer to void function 01 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void HHH(ptr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P, ptr I)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02   {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03     P(I);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04     return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05   }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06 07   void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08   {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09     HHH(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10     return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11   }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 13   int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14   {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15     HHH(DDD,DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16   }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the above Neither DDD nor HHH ever reach their own 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus never halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of my reviewers incorrectly believe that when 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HH(DD,DD) aborts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its simulated input that this simulated input halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You chopped out the mandatory prerequisite.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please go back and prove that you understand what 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite recursion is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before proceeding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dude, I've got nothing to prove to you. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK then we are done talking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You instead could explain how you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can call a simulation that differs from the direct 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution "correct".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or why H and HH are different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could but you refuse to go through the steps of the proof,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-at-a-time with mutual agreement at each step.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not going to tolerate circular head games that never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result in any mutual agreement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I.E. Someone else is calling you out on your incorrect 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic, so you are threatening to take your ball and go home.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We must go through the steps one-at-a-time and have mutual 
>>>>>>>>>>>> agreement
>>>>>>>>>>>> on each step to eliminate miscommunication intentional or 
>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, when someone questions what you mean by something, you 
>>>>>>>>>>> need to clearify the meaning of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When someone "questions what you mean by something"
>>>>>>>>>> by calling me a liar they may go to actual Hell.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I only call you after you repeat the same basic lie several 
>>>>>>>>> times after being corrected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a valid definition of a Liar, and you fit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION.
>>>>>>>> STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then stop Lying!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I never have lied and you know it*
>>>>>
>>>>> Another Lie. (Read the message you trimed)
>>>>>
>>>>>> *THAT YOU REFUSE TO EVEN POINT OUT ANY 100% SPECIFIC MISTAKE*
>>>>>
>>>>> Another Lie. (Read the messsage you trimed)
>>>>>
>>>>>> *AND PERSIST IN CALLING ME A LIAR AFTER A CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER*
>>>>>> *WINS DEFAMATION CASES*
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, since my words are correct, you have no case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you REALLY want to have to testify on the stand before a jury of 
>>>>> "normal" people and try to explain your idea to them and convince 
>>>>> tem that you are telling the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Think you could stand the counter claims?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, Never *PROVEN*
>>>>>
>>>>> And not by the right defintion of "Correctly SImulated" to claim 
>>>>> not-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>>> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
>>>>>> *I have proved that D is correctly simulated by H FOR THREE YEARS*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That D is correctly simulated by H is proved by the fact that
>>>>>> the x86 source-code of D exactly matches the two execution
>>>>>> traces that I provided. *It is much easier to see in Google Groups*
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, remember, you still havn't correctly simulated the call H 
>>>>> instruction, and have instructions listed that were never actual 
>>>>> gotten to again.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that found the spot in the source-code to insert the
>>>> display of the simulated lines of H simulated by H. This
>>>> might only be 100 pages of output.
>>>
>>> So do it. And then provide an analysis where you show how you PROVE 
>>> your statement. (And be clear exactly what statement you are claiming 
>>> to prove)
>>>
>> Perhaps you have always been hiding your lack of sufficient
>> technical competence?
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>> This has ALWAYS proved that D is correctly simulated by H.
> 
> Nope, Since D(D) Halts, the answer of 0 is NOT correct, and H has NOT 
> proven that no such simulation can halt.
> 

*That you keep ignoring this is less than no rebuttal at all*
THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same
behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions
of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below).

_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*

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Thread

Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:19 -0500
  Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:07 -0500
    D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:48 -0500
      Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:16 -0400
        Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:39 -0500
          Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:45 -0400
            Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:53 -0500
              Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 23:09 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:21 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
      Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-10 08:35 +0000

csiph-web