Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #335351 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 270 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
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 --- 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 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) 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) --- 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 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
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 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 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 10:56 -0500
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 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:10 -0500
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: 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
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 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 --- 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 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 --- 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 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 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 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:35 -0400
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
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 --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500
Page 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 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 | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v46na7$3ifov$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335351 |
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 | #335358 |
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 | #335368 |
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 | #335371 |
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 | #335372 |
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 | #335374 |
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 | #335378 |
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 | #335380 |
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 | #335382 |
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]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 19:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4arp0$1a7uo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335383 |
On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: > 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 > There are no finite string transformations from the input to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) is irrelevant. -- 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 22:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4b1c3$3nf9n$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335384 |
On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >> 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 >> > > There are no finite string transformations from the input > to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) > is irrelevant. > Of course there is. That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. It will transform the input string into the behavior of the directly executed machine. Your H just needs to figure out what that behavor would be. It CAN be done for many (but not all) inputs. The not-all is what makes the problem uncomputable, which seems to put it outside your ability to understand it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 22:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4b50m$1f89t$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335391 |
On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> There are no finite string transformations from the input
>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D)
>> is irrelevant.
>>
>
> Of course there is.
>
> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is.
>
Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips
though the cracks of vagueness.
Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that
DDD terminates normally.
typedef void (*ptr)();
u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I);
void DDD(int (*x)())
{
HH(x, x);
}
int main()
{
HH(DDD,DDD);
}
_DDD()
[00001df3] 55 push ebp
[00001df4] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001df6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001df9] 50 push eax
[00001dfa] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dfd] 51 push ecx
[00001dfe] e830f5ffff call 00001333
[00001e03] 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001e06] 5d pop ebp
[00001e07] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0021) [00001e07]
--
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 | 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4c12r$3oop0$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335399 |
On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input
>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D)
>>> is irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>> Of course there is.
>>
>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is.
>>
>
> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips
> though the cracks of vagueness.
>
> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that
> DDD terminates normally.
WHy? I never claimed that to be true.
The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter
example exists, it might just not be discovered.
Your question shows that you don't understand that essential property of
logic.
Your reliance on Strawmen, Red Herrings, and other dishonest dodges just
shows that you don't have any actual logical argument foryou poosition,
so you are going to try deceit.
>
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I);
>
> void DDD(int (*x)())
> {
> HH(x, x);
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> HH(DDD,DDD);
> }
>
> _DDD()
> [00001df3] 55 push ebp
> [00001df4] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001df6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001df9] 50 push eax
> [00001dfa] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001dfd] 51 push ecx
> [00001dfe] e830f5ffff call 00001333
> [00001e03] 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00001e06] 5d pop ebp
> [00001e07] c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001e07]
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 11:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4cjl7$1o4b4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335404 |
On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>> is irrelevant. >>>> >>> >>> Of course there is. >>> >>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>> >> >> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >> though the cracks of vagueness. >> >> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >> DDD terminates normally. > > WHy? I never claimed that to be true. > > The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter > example exists, it might just not be discovered. > On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker for halt decider H. When we compute the mapping from the input to H(D,D) this must apply a set of finite string transformation rules (specified by the semantics of the x86 language) to this input. The appropriate finite string transformation rules are D correctly simulated by H. There is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). If there was such a mapping then the detailed steps of D correctly simulated by H where D terminates normally could be provided. Thus I have proven H(D,D) is not allowed to report on the behavior of the directly executed D(D) because H is required to report on the mapping form its input and there is no mapping that reaches the behavior of D(D). _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] -- 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 | 2024-06-12 18:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4d991$3qbnc$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335410 |
On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course there is. >>>> >>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>> >>> >>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>> >>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>> DDD terminates normally. >> >> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >> >> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter >> example exists, it might just not be discovered. >> > > On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ > > *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* > The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker > for halt decider H. Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the input when directly run. > > When we compute the mapping from the input to H(D,D) this > must apply a set of finite string transformation rules > (specified by the semantics of the x86 language) to this input. No, we apply the DEFINTION of the problem that H is claiming to solve. The finite-string transformation that does this is an actual UTM. > > The appropriate finite string transformation rules are D > correctly simulated by H. Then H just is NOT a Halt Decider, and you are just admitting to LYING about that for the last decades, as the transformation rules are that of a the UTM. Unles you can provide a RELAIBLE SOURCE for your claim that it is "the correct simulation by H", you are just admitting that you have been a LIAR for this for the past decades. > > There is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior > of D(D). If there was such a mapping then the detailed steps > of D correctly simulated by H where D terminates normally > could be provided. Of course there is, that is what a UTM does. But since HB isn't a UTM, your claim just show you to be a lying idiot. Can you show a reference that the transformation needs to be something done by a particular decider? Failure to provide that also prove you to be just a idiotic pathological liar. > > Thus I have proven H(D,D) is not allowed to report on the > behavior of the directly executed D(D) because H is required > to report on the mapping form its input and there is no mapping > that reaches the behavior of D(D). > Nope, you have shown that you think "unsubstantiated claim" make up a proof. Thus showing you are totally UNqualified to be discussing logic. > _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] > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 18:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4da12$1sioe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335421 |
On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course there is. >>>>> >>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>> >>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>> DDD terminates normally. >>> >>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>> >>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter >>> example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>> >> >> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >> >> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >> for halt decider H. > > Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the > input when directly run. > *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* *A LEAP OF FAITH DOES NOT COUNT IN THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION* *SHOW ME THE DETAILED STEPS* _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] -- 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 | 2024-06-12 19:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4dbmf$3qbnc$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335423 |
On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course there is. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>>> >>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>>> DDD terminates normally. >>>> >>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>>> >>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter >>>> example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>>> >>> >>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>> >>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >>> for halt decider H. >> >> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the >> input when directly run. >> > > *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* > *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* > NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it. And the answer is no. > *A LEAP OF FAITH DOES NOT COUNT IN THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION* > *SHOW ME THE DETAILED STEPS* WHo needs a leap of "faith" We can look at it from the higher level, and not get into the details of this H (that you don't provide here). Since H(D,D) is claimed to correctly return 0, then we KNOW that the direct exection of D(D), when it calls H(D,D) will eventually see that call return with the value of 0. This follows from the fact that H is claimed to be a pure function, and thus ALL calls to it with the same input MUST produce the same result, thus simple inspection of the code at the C programming level shows that D(D) Must Halt, and thus the UTM simulstion of the input to H, that represents that input must also halt. Your FALSE claim that H is supposed to report on its non-existant or mis-defined "correct simulation" is just proved to be the lie it is, as you have NEVER been able to show any source that supports it, only your invalid logic that it is the only thing it could be, even though it isn't defined that way (showing your logic process is based on lies being an acceptable method to do things). > > _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] > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 18:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4dcd6$1sioe$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335425 |
On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course there is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>>>> >>>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>>>> DDD terminates normally. >>>>> >>>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>>>> >>>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter >>>>> example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>> >>>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >>>> for halt decider H. >>> >>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the >>> input when directly run. >>> >> >> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* >> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* >> > > NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is > whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it. > There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D) can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior that you expect. Halt Deciders are only allowed to report on the behavior that they can map their finite string input to. You are finally admitting that you are expecting H to report on something that it cannot see and not report on that it does see. _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] -- 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 | 2024-06-12 20:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4df0h$3qbnd$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335428 |
On 6/12/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course there is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>>>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>>>>> DDD terminates normally. >>>>>> >>>>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>>>>> >>>>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter >>>>>> example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>> >>>>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >>>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >>>>> for halt decider H. >>>> >>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the >>>> input when directly run. >>>> >>> >>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* >>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* >>> >> >> NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is >> whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it. >> > > There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D) > can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior > that you expect. So? There is a mapping, and thus the question is VALID. That there is no finite steps to compute that mapping meaning that the Halting Function is just uncomputable. That is a perfectly fine result. > > Halt Deciders are only allowed to report on the behavior that > they can map their finite string input to. > Nope, you have the issues backwards. They only CAN report on what they can map with a finite algortithm. To be a Halt Decider, they MUST try to compute the defined mapping, which, as you state, can not be done > You are finally admitting that you are expecting H to report > on something that it cannot see and not report on that it does see. Yep. To be a Halt decider, it must try to compute something that isn't defined by a finite algorithm. Since, it turns out we can actually PROVE that there is no finite algorithm that CAN do it, we can conclude, as the Theorem states, that the Halting Functino is uncomputable. Nothing wrong with that. > > _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] > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 14 [1] 2 3 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web