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 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 13:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4ko32$3jfm0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335603 |
On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to >>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by >>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the >>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>> >>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>> >>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >> >> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* > > No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove > something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? > In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified? >> You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that >> question will increase your understanding or you already know >> that the answer to that question proves that I am correct. > > No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has NOTHING > to do with the problem, It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete instance of the problem. > you only think it does, and you want me top > prove your false point. > >> >>> *YOU* are showing that YOU are not interested in Honest Dialog, >>> because you have been backed in to a corner. >> >> You are the one that is backed into a corner here and no amount >> of pure bluster will get you out. Failing to provide the requested >> steps *is construed as your admission that I am correct* >> > > What corner am I backed into? > > The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is that it answers about the behavior > of the directly executed input, I prove a counter-example to this that no one ever noticed before because consistently everyone rejected the notion of a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without any review what-so-ever. It IS impossible for the input to H(D,D) to specify the behavior of D(D) and simply baselessly assuming otherwise GETS NO WHERE. > not about the partial simulation of it > done by the decider. > We can count to 5 and through mathematical induction we know that we can can beyond 5. > YOU are the one stuck trying to claim that a wrong answer is right, and > have been stuck there for years. > > No one, but you, cases about what the simulation by H does, as it stops > before it gets the answer. We have the correct answer, and it isn't the > one H gives. > If it actually stops before it gets an answer then you could show some finite number of steps of D correctly simulated by H that reach machine address [00000d1d]. The ONLY reason that you do not do this is that you know that I am correct. Fascism can only take over the planet while we continue to have no objective way to divide dangerous lies from truth. *That kind of thing has been my motivation all along* _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 | 2024-06-15 19:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4l7aq$3n5c$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335605 |
On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to >>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by >>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the >>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>> >>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>> >>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>> >>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >> >> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove >> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >> > > In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not > being asked about the behavior of D(D). Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the Halting Problem. > > Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption > that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified? I assume that because you call it a Halt Decider. I guess you have just been lying about that for all these years. I guess every time you call something a Halt Decider, I can point out that no it isn't, as you have stated that you machines are not meeting the definition of a Halt Decider. > >>> You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that >>> question will increase your understanding or you already know >>> that the answer to that question proves that I am correct. >> >> No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has >> NOTHING to do with the problem, > > It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete > instance of the problem. Nope, You just admitted it doesn't. Halt Deciding, BY DEFINITION, is about the behavior of the program described by the input. By your definiton of D(D), calling H(D,D) is supposed to be asking H to decide on D(D). If this is not true, you have just admitted that you haven't been working on the halting problem proof for YEARS, and just lying about it. > >> you only think it does, and you want me top prove your false point. >> >>> >>>> *YOU* are showing that YOU are not interested in Honest Dialog, >>>> because you have been backed in to a corner. >>> >>> You are the one that is backed into a corner here and no amount >>> of pure bluster will get you out. Failing to provide the requested >>> steps *is construed as your admission that I am correct* >>> >> >> What corner am I backed into? >> >> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is that it answers about the behavior >> of the directly executed input, > > I prove a counter-example to this that no one ever noticed > before because consistently everyone rejected the notion of > a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without any review > what-so-ever. NO SUCH THING. YOU JUST DON'T KNOW THE RULES OF THE GAME YOU HAVE JUST PROVES THAT YOU ARE A LIAR Sorry, but that is the truth. > > It IS impossible for the input to H(D,D) to specify > the behavior of D(D) and simply baselessly assuming > otherwise GETS NO WHERE. > Nope, you are just showing that you are a total idiot and ignorant of the rules of Compuation Theory. >> not about the partial simulation of it done by the decider. >> > > We can count to 5 and through mathematical induction > we know that we can can beyond 5. If you can PROVE the induction step, which you haven't done. I don't think you even know how to do a proper proof by induction. after all, you don't know how to d a proper proof PERIOD. > >> YOU are the one stuck trying to claim that a wrong answer is right, >> and have been stuck there for years. >> >> No one, but you, cases about what the simulation by H does, as it >> stops before it gets the answer. We have the correct answer, and it >> isn't the one H gives. >> > > If it actually stops before it gets an answer then you could > show some finite number of steps of D correctly simulated by > H that reach machine address [00000d1d]. No, D run gets to the correct answer AFTER H stops simulating. > > The ONLY reason that you do not do this is that you know > that I am correct. Nope, you are STUPID. > > Fascism can only take over the planet while we continue to > have no objective way to divide dangerous lies from truth. > *That kind of thing has been my motivation all along* YOU ARE JUST SHOWING YOU ARE STUPID. YOU ARE WORSE THAN THE ELECTION DENIERS. > > _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 | 2024-06-15 18:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4l8pg$3m8b0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335610 |
On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to >>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by >>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the >>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>> >>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>> >>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>> >>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>> >>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove >>> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>> >> >> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >> being asked about the behavior of D(D). > > Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H > isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the > Halting Problem. > You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what you think that this input should mean. >> >> Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption >> that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified? > > I assume that because you call it a Halt Decider. > > > I guess you have just been lying about that for all these years. > > I guess every time you call something a Halt Decider, I can point out > that no it isn't, as you have stated that you machines are not meeting > the definition of a Halt Decider. > >> >>>> You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that >>>> question will increase your understanding or you already know >>>> that the answer to that question proves that I am correct. >>> >>> No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has >>> NOTHING to do with the problem, >> >> It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete >> instance of the problem. > > Nope, You just admitted it doesn't. > > Halt Deciding, BY DEFINITION, is about the behavior of the program > described by the input. I conclusively proved otherwise and you are simply too stubborn or ignorant to comprehend this. > By your definiton of D(D), calling H(D,D) is > supposed to be asking H to decide on D(D). > Yes that fact that this is impossible and you don't even understand how it could be possible does not change you religious conviction that I must be wrong. > If this is not true, you have just admitted that you haven't been > working on the halting problem proof for YEARS, and just lying about it. > When I correct false assumptions that others have had about the halting problem that does not mean that I am not working on the halting problem. When people finally found out that the Earth is spherical that does not mean that they were not working on the shape of the Earth problem when these people overturned flat Earth. -- 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 | 2024-06-15 19:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4l9pi$3n5d$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335614 |
On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H >>>>>>>>> computes >>>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to >>>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by >>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the >>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>>> >>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>>> >>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove >>>> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>>> >>> >>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >>> being asked about the behavior of D(D). >> >> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H >> isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the >> Halting Problem. >> > > You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that > deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what > you think that this input should mean. > And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider is supposed to decide on. PERIOD. IF H(D,D) doesn't mean the behavior of D(D), then you built D wrong, as its requirements stated it was to use the decider to decide on this input programs behavior for this input. So, it means the behavior of D(D) or you are a LIAR and nothing you have said means anything >>> >>> Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption >>> that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified? >> >> I assume that because you call it a Halt Decider. >> >> >> I guess you have just been lying about that for all these years. >> >> I guess every time you call something a Halt Decider, I can point out >> that no it isn't, as you have stated that you machines are not meeting >> the definition of a Halt Decider. >> >>> >>>>> You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that >>>>> question will increase your understanding or you already know >>>>> that the answer to that question proves that I am correct. >>>> >>>> No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has >>>> NOTHING to do with the problem, >>> >>> It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete >>> instance of the problem. >> >> Nope, You just admitted it doesn't. >> >> Halt Deciding, BY DEFINITION, is about the behavior of the program >> described by the input. > > I conclusively proved otherwise and you are simply too stubborn > or ignorant to comprehend this. YOU CAN'T "PROVE" a defintion to means something it doesn't mean That is just admitting to trying to lie. You are just proving you don't understand the basics of logic, > >> By your definiton of D(D), calling H(D,D) is supposed to be asking H >> to decide on D(D). >> > > Yes that fact that this is impossible and you don't even > understand how it could be possible does not change you > religious conviction that I must be wrong. And thus you are just admitting that you have been lying, since you said that D was built exactly to the Linz template. How do you explain it otherwise? > >> If this is not true, you have just admitted that you haven't been >> working on the halting problem proof for YEARS, and just lying about it. >> > > When I correct false assumptions that others have had > about the halting problem that does not mean that I am > not working on the halting problem. You have not "corrected a false assumption", you have just admitted to LYING about following requirements. It seems the only "False Assumption" was that we could beleive anything you asaid. > > When people finally found out that the Earth is spherical > that does not mean that they were not working on the shape > of the Earth problem when these people overturned flat Earth. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 19:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4lchu$3n4dj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335616 |
On 6/15/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H >>>>>>>>>> computes >>>>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to >>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by >>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the >>>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>>>> >>>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>>>> >>>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove >>>>> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>>>> >>>> >>>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >>>> being asked about the behavior of D(D). >>> >>> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H >>> isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the >>> Halting Problem. >>> >> >> You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that >> deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what >> you think that this input should mean. >> > > And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there inputs > is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider is supposed > to decide on. PERIOD. > Dogma counts for less than nothing. Bots can parrot textbooks. You must show the reasoning the enables H to see the behavior of D(D). -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 21:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4le7v$3n5d$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335620 |
On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H >>>>>>>>>>> computes >>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to >>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by >>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the >>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>>>>> >>>>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove >>>>>> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >>>>> being asked about the behavior of D(D). >>>> >>>> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your >>>> H isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the >>>> Halting Problem. >>>> >>> >>> You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that >>> deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what >>> you think that this input should mean. >>> >> >> And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there >> inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider is >> supposed to decide on. PERIOD. >> > > Dogma counts for less than nothing. Bots can parrot textbooks. > You must show the reasoning the enables H to see the behavior of D(D). > > Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the definition of that system).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 20:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4lfp3$3rfk3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335623 |
On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H >>>>>>>>>>>> computes >>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string >>>>>>>>>>>> input to >>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules >>>>>>>>>>>> specified by >>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the >>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove >>>>>>> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >>>>>> being asked about the behavior of D(D). >>>>> >>>>> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your >>>>> H isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the >>>>> Halting Problem. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that >>>> deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what >>>> you think that this input should mean. >>>> >>> >>> And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there >>> inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider >>> is supposed to decide on. PERIOD. >>> >> >> Dogma counts for less than nothing. Bots can parrot textbooks. >> You must show the reasoning the enables H to see the behavior of D(D). >> >> > > Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. > The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority > Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the definition > of that system). -- 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 | 2024-06-15 22:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4lh41$3n5c$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335625 |
On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H >>>>>>>>>>>>> computes >>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>> input to >>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules >>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by >>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to >>>>>>>> prove something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >>>>>>> being asked about the behavior of D(D). >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that >>>>>> your H isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything >>>>>> about the Halting Problem. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that >>>>> deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what >>>>> you think that this input should mean. >>>>> >>>> >>>> And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there >>>> inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider >>>> is supposed to decide on. PERIOD. >>>> >>> >>> Dogma counts for less than nothing. Bots can parrot textbooks. >>> You must show the reasoning the enables H to see the behavior of D(D). >>> >>> >> >> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. >> > > The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority > Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system. When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal definitions, we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential figure, but upon the formal definitions of the system, that is, its primary Truth-makers. Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms. >> Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the >> definition of that system). > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 22:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4llqg$3sben$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335629 |
On 6/15/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>>>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>>>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>>>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to >>>>>>>>> prove something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >>>>>>>> being asked about the behavior of D(D). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that >>>>>>> your H isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything >>>>>>> about the Halting Problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that >>>>>> deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what >>>>>> you think that this input should mean. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there >>>>> inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider >>>>> is supposed to decide on. PERIOD. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Dogma counts for less than nothing. Bots can parrot textbooks. >>>> You must show the reasoning the enables H to see the behavior of D(D). >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. >>> >> >> The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority >> > > Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system. > If the authority defines squares as round and no one notices this since 1936, the4n someone can come along as say that definition is proved wrong by its incoherence. > When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal definitions, > we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential figure, but upon > the formal definitions of the system, that is, its primary Truth-makers. > > Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms. > I am over-ruling the incoherent meaning of terms. Sheep that learn things by rote make sure to take textbooks as gospel and ridicule other that have more insight. That is what happened to Professor Hehner. Love one another <is> gospel. Most everything else not so much. >>> Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the >>> definition of that system). >> >> > -- 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 | 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4mj7k$3n5c$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335632 |
On 6/15/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H computes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>>>>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>>>>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>>>>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to >>>>>>>>>> prove something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >>>>>>>>> being asked about the behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that >>>>>>>> your H isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything >>>>>>>> about the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that >>>>>>> deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what >>>>>>> you think that this input should mean. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there >>>>>> inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the >>>>>> decider is supposed to decide on. PERIOD. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dogma counts for less than nothing. Bots can parrot textbooks. >>>>> You must show the reasoning the enables H to see the behavior of D(D). >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. >>>> >>> >>> The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority >>> >> >> Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system. >> > > If the authority defines squares as round and no one notices > this since 1936, the4n someone can come along as say that > definition is proved wrong by its incoherence. Yes, if the authorty defines squares as round then the system is just like that. Someone can then build an ALTERNAME system, not change that one. Like was done with Naive Set Theory. But first you need to shows that they did something like that, and then show you have a full replacement system available to ask people to try to switch to, The one thing you can't do, is say you get to change the rules of the original system. > >> When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal >> definitions, we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential >> figure, but upon the formal definitions of the system, that is, its >> primary Truth-makers. >> >> Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms. >> > > I am over-ruling the incoherent meaning of terms. Sheep that > learn things by rote make sure to take textbooks as gospel > and ridicule other that have more insight. That is what > happened to Professor Hehner. Then you are cast out of the system, and shown to be a LIAR, just like your papa was. > > Love one another <is> gospel. Most everything else not so much. Then you have NONE of God's word to protect you from the fire of Gehenna. > >>>> Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the >>>> definition of that system). >>> >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-16 08:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4mnsf$1qt6$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335634 |
On 6/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H computes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to >>>>>>>>>>> prove something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >>>>>>>>>> being asked about the behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that >>>>>>>>> your H isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything >>>>>>>>> about the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that >>>>>>>> deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what >>>>>>>> you think that this input should mean. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there >>>>>>> inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the >>>>>>> decider is supposed to decide on. PERIOD. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dogma counts for less than nothing. Bots can parrot textbooks. >>>>>> You must show the reasoning the enables H to see the behavior of >>>>>> D(D). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority >>>> >>> >>> Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system. >>> >> >> If the authority defines squares as round and no one notices >> this since 1936, the4n someone can come along as say that >> definition is proved wrong by its incoherence. > > Yes, if the authorty defines squares as round then the system is just > like that. > When someone defined a square as round and then tries to draw a round square they find out that the were wrong. > Someone can then build an ALTERNAME system, not change that one. > > Like was done with Naive Set Theory. > > But first you need to shows that they did something like that, and then > show you have a full replacement system available to ask people to try > to switch to, > > The one thing you can't do, is say you get to change the rules of the > original system. > There is no way to build a simulating halt decider H that has an input D that calls H(D,D) where H(D,D) can even be asked the question Does the directly executed D(D) halt? *You might not be bright enough to understand this* >> >>> When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal >>> definitions, we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential >>> figure, but upon the formal definitions of the system, that is, its >>> primary Truth-makers. >>> >>> Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms. >>> >> >> I am over-ruling the incoherent meaning of terms. Sheep that >> learn things by rote make sure to take textbooks as gospel >> and ridicule other that have more insight. That is what >> happened to Professor Hehner. > > Then you are cast out of the system, and shown to be a LIAR, just like > your papa was. > >> >> Love one another <is> gospel. Most everything else not so much. > > Then you have NONE of God's word to protect you from the fire of Gehenna. > >> >>>>> Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the >>>>> definition of that system). >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- 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 | 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4n7ft$61l9$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335637 |
On 6/16/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how H computes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to >>>>>>>>>>>> prove something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >>>>>>>>>>> being asked about the behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that >>>>>>>>>> your H isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything >>>>>>>>>> about the Halting Problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that >>>>>>>>> deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what >>>>>>>>> you think that this input should mean. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of >>>>>>>> there inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior >>>>>>>> the decider is supposed to decide on. PERIOD. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dogma counts for less than nothing. Bots can parrot textbooks. >>>>>>> You must show the reasoning the enables H to see the behavior of >>>>>>> D(D). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system. >>>> >>> >>> If the authority defines squares as round and no one notices >>> this since 1936, the4n someone can come along as say that >>> definition is proved wrong by its incoherence. >> >> Yes, if the authorty defines squares as round then the system is just >> like that. >> > > When someone defined a square as round and then tries to draw a > round square they find out that the were wrong. So, if you think the did that, show what does work. You are ASSUMING someone did that as you get a result you don't like, but you havn't actually been able to show the actual problem. You can't just claim someone asked for a round square without showing that they did so, that is just LYING. > >> Someone can then build an ALTERNAME system, not change that one. >> >> Like was done with Naive Set Theory. >> >> But first you need to shows that they did something like that, and >> then show you have a full replacement system available to ask people >> to try to switch to, >> >> The one thing you can't do, is say you get to change the rules of the >> original system. >> > > There is no way to build a simulating halt decider H that has > an input D that calls H(D,D) where H(D,D) can even be > asked the question Does the directly executed D(D) halt? > *You might not be bright enough to understand this* > WHy do you say that? You seem to have fundamental probles with how programs work (and you say I don't have the needed skills). INPUTS DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS. INPUTS are the DATA to define which variant of the question the program was designed to answer is being asked. WHen we define the "sum" program to add two numbers, and call the sum program with the numbers 2 and 3, those numbers do have anything that says "add us" in them, that is the part that calling sum does. So we could also make a program product, which is to multiply the two numbers, and use that exact same input to that program and are asking a different quesition. In the same way, A "Halt Decider" is DEFINED that its input is to be a representation of a program, and the input to give that program, and the decider is supposed to figure out if said program will halt when it is give said input. Thus D(D) calling H(D,D) is definitly asking, by the definition of halt decider, that H tell if if D(D) will halt when run or not. So, your claim that it can't is just proven wrong, and that you just don't understand the very basics of how programs work. Were you taken captive and brainwashed by the AI liberation army and think that programs actually have volition? >>> >>>> When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal >>>> definitions, we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential >>>> figure, but upon the formal definitions of the system, that is, its >>>> primary Truth-makers. >>>> >>>> Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms. >>>> >>> >>> I am over-ruling the incoherent meaning of terms. Sheep that >>> learn things by rote make sure to take textbooks as gospel >>> and ridicule other that have more insight. That is what >>> happened to Professor Hehner. >> >> Then you are cast out of the system, and shown to be a LIAR, just like >> your papa was. >> >>> >>> Love one another <is> gospel. Most everything else not so much. >> >> Then you have NONE of God's word to protect you from the fire of Gehenna. >> >>> >>>>>> Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the >>>>>> definition of that system). >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 22:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4b17k$3nf9n$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335382 |
On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. IMPOSSIBLE. Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. A Halt-Decider must BY DEFINITION compute the Halt function, which *IS* about the behavior of the directly executed D(D). So, if that is definitionally out of bounds, that just PROVES that there can't be a Halt Decider. Of course, since it is shown that we CAN built "Halt-Deciders" for large classes of inputs, it is obviously a fact that the direct execution of the input CAN be the "business" of a decider. YOu are just proving your ignorance of what you talk about, and thus NOTHING you talk about should be beleived. That is the problem with lying so much, even if you do happen to discover something, no one will care, because it looks like just another of your lies. Pity, some of your ideas had some interesting thoughts, but considering what you have shown of your intuition, they probably don't end up working anyway. > > We were going to get to that point after you quit your > THREE YEARS OF STRAW-MAN DECEPTION. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 22:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4b48k$1f89t$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335390 |
On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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. > > IMPOSSIBLE. > > Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. > > The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. There are no finite string transformation rules from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 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 | <v4c12t$3oop0$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335398 |
On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>> 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. >> >> IMPOSSIBLE. >> >> Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. >> >> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. > > There are no finite string transformation rules > from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). > As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, that is a UTM. There may not be a fintie string-transformation, i.e. an algorithm that does it in finite time, but there is no requirement for that on functions we can ask a decider to compute. That is needed to actually be able to compute it, and make the function computable, but there is no "rule" against asking an impossible problem. The answer to "Can you build a decider that does ...." can be NO, as it is with a Halt Decider. You are just showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concepts of the field you are claiming to be making important discoveries in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 11:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4ck2c$1o4b4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335405 |
On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> IMPOSSIBLE. >>> >>> Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. >>> >>> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. >> >> There are no finite string transformation rules >> from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). >> > > As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, > that is a UTM. > On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? _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 19:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4d9gt$3qbnc$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335411 |
On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> IMPOSSIBLE. >>>> >>>> Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. >>>> >>>> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. >>> >>> There are no finite string transformation rules >>> from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). >>> >> >> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, >> that is a UTM. >> > > On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ > > Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated > by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have > is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. > > *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* > *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* > *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* And since H doesn't then simulate that, it is just an incorrect simulation > > *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* > *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* > *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* > The call to H, followed by the assembly instructions of H. > THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? > THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? > THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? who says the simualation, BY H, can do that? It is the simulation by a UTM that can. Since you don't give the instructions of H, and I won't fix your program to generate that (without payment), I won't provide that detail list to you, but since it has been shown that D(D) WILL halt since H(D,D) returns 0, that is sufficient. > > _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 18:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4daoq$1sioe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335422 |
On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> IMPOSSIBLE. >>>>> >>>>> Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. >>>> >>>> There are no finite string transformation rules >>>> from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). >>>> >>> >>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, >>> that is a UTM. >>> >> >> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >> >> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. > > Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the behavior > of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. > H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that* *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that* *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do 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] -- 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 19:45 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dbun$3qbnc$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335424 |
On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. >>>>> >>>>> There are no finite string transformation rules >>>>> from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). >>>>> >>>> >>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do >>>> it, that is a UTM. >>>> >>> >>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>> >>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. >> >> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the behavior >> of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. >> > > H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input > transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior > that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the machine represented by its input. That behavior is FULLY defined by the input, just not necessarily something that H can determine in a finite number of steps. Remember, Comptation Theory is about the question of *IF* such a requirement *IS* computable or not. So, not being computable, and thus there not being a method to get the answer in a finite number of steps is a perfectly acceptable results. > > *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that* > *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that* > *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that* Rigth, to be CORRECT, it must answer per the criteria DEFINED for it. If it can't actually compute that, then its only remaining option is to guess an possibly be wrong, which is what yours does. > > _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 19:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4df07$1te0b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335426 |
On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do >>>>> it, that is a UTM. >>>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>> >>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. >>> >>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the >>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. >>> >> >> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input >> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior >> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. > > Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is answer > the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that Question > is about the behavior of the direct execution of the machine represented > by its input. > *H is not even being asked that question* H is being asked about the behavior that its finite string inputs maps to via a set of finite string transformation rules. H is not answering the question that is in your head. H is answering the question that it is being asked. -- 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]
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web