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 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-26 21:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5ih4p$2hkk4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #336046 |
On 6/26/2024 8:15 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 27/06/2024 01:42, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/26/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>>>>>>>> That the the way that lies are defined. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Source for you claim? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the >>>>>>>> system to that claim? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I already told you that example does not count. >>>>> >>>>> I can't keep repeating those details or others >>>>> that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is >>>>> will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension. >>>>> >>>> >>>> WHy not? >>>> >>> >>> We have already been over that you know that you cheated. >>> >> >> Nope, since you didn't put in the rule, and if you had it would have >> shown that you lied, as if H0 is a pure function then the call to H0 >> emulated by H0 needs to have the same behaivor as the direct call to >> H0 by main. > > Incidentally, the nonconformance you're referring to is shown explicitly > in the "195 page trace" that PO linked to. [I.e. the simulated H does > not correctly track the code path of the outer H.] > > Mike. > > I think that it does. I checked it all over again and I think that it always did. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-27 09:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5jrrq$2o58l$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #336005 |
On 6/27/2024 2:36 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-26 12:58:59 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/26/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-26 02:29:59 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/25/2024 9:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/24 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, Ben. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct >>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> when DDD is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> return. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>>>>>>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is >>>>>>>>>>> that H0 >>>>>>>>>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that >>>>>>>>>>> when H0 is >>>>>>>>>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall >>>>>>>>>>> seeing anybody >>>>>>>>>>> arguing against that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't >>>>>>>>>>> think anybody >>>>>>>>>>> else would argue against that, either. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for >>>>>>>>>> years. It >>>>>>>>>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he >>>>>>>>>> made the >>>>>>>>>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step >>>>>>>>>> simulator >>>>>>>>>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some >>>>>>>>>> pattern was >>>>>>>>>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct >>>>>>>>>> result for >>>>>>>>>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what >>>>>>>>>> H(H_Hat(), >>>>>>>>>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the >>>>>>>>> newsgroup to >>>>>>>>> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO >>>>>>>>> improve his >>>>>>>>> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >>>>>>>>> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short >>>>>>>>> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >>>>>>>>> something or other as non-terminating? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Ben. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words >>>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words >>>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H >>>>>>>> > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>>>>> > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The >>>>>>>> > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H >>>>>>>> > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing >>>>>>>> with something that he did not fully understand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* >>>>>>>> *the highlighted portion of the following definition* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >>>>>>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a >>>>>>>> function is computable if there exists an algorithm >>>>>>>> that can do the job of the function, i.e. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *given an input of the function domain* >>>>>>>> *it can return the corresponding output* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But only if the function is, in fact, computable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact. >>>>>> >>>>>> If I ask you: What time is it? >>>>>> and you do not tell me the answer to the question hidden >>>>>> in my mind "What did you have for dinner?" We cannot say >>>>>> that you provided the wrong answer when you tell me what >>>>>> time it is. >>>>> >>>>> Because I answered the actual question. >>>>> >>>>> Just like the "Halt Decider" needs to answer the "Halt Decider >>>>> Question" and not answer about POOP. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When we ask H to tell us whether its actual input halts >>>>>> H can only answer that P correctly simulated by H will not halt. >>>>>> H cannot answer the question hidden in your mind. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Then you are just admitting that it can't be a Halt Decider. >>>>> >>>>> If it isn't what the definition requires, it just isn't one. >>>> >>>> Yes and everyone knows that computer scientists are much >>>> more infallible than God thus cannot possibly ever make >>>> a definition that is incoherent in ways that these 100% >>>> infallible computer scientists never noticed. >>> >>> Actually, it is the opposite. Everybody, or at least all computer >>> scientists and engineers, know that they, and all peaple, are fallible, >>> at least when making programs and when inferring about programs. >>> Therefore >>> computer engineers demand that every program must be tested, and >>> computer >>> scinetists demand that every claim is proven. >> >> If this was true then everyone here would already know >> that H(P,P) is not even being asked about the behavior >> of the directly executed P(P). > > Everyone knwos that H(P,P) is not asked anything. > In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a decision problem is a computational problem that can be posed as a yes–no question of the input values. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-28 07:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5mb0p$3b1p0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #336079 |
On 6/28/2024 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-27 16:56:56 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 6/27/2024 10:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-27 14:10:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a
>>>> decision problem is a computational problem that can be posed as
>>>> a yes–no question of the input values.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
>>>
>>> That's right. But that question cannot be presented to the decider.
>>> Only the input values can.
>>>
>> In other words you are saying that Turing machines do not
>> typically understand English.
>
> I didn't mean it that generally, only about deciders, but yes, typical
> Turing machines do not understand any English. More specifically, the
> specification of a halt decider (or any typical decider) prevents it
> from being asked in any language.
>
// The question: Is x > y ?
bool GreaterThan(int x, int y) { return (x > y); }
Deciders are always asked a yes/no question of their
inputs in their own native language.
>> None-the-less no-one here understands that every halt decider
>> is only required to report on the behavior that its actual
>> input actually maps to.
>
> As far as I have seen, most of them do. And not just maps but maps
> in the way specified by the problem statement.
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator H0 cannot possibly return.
The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant
because that is not the behavior of the input. Deciders
compute the mapping from their actual finite string input
to an output by a sequence of finite string transformations.
In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution
trace of the behavior of DDD correctly emulated by H0.
The behavior of this input must include and cannot ignore
the recursive emulation specified by the fact that DDD is
calling its own emulator. That people think they can just
pretend that this is not happening is ridiculous.
>> Instead everyone here expects that the halt decider must map
>> to the English description of what the authors of textbooks
>> expect it to map to.
>
> Your "everyone" is a lie. As far as I have seen, nobody has expressed
> that expectation, and several have said otherwise.
>
Everyone that states an opinion says that the decider
must go by the textbook definitions of the problem thus
not the problem instance actually encoded by the input.
>> We already agreed that Turing machines do not typically
>> understand English, so this assumption is stupid.
>
> You may have agreed but you failed to keep that agreement.
>
>> *DDD correctly simulated by H0 DOES NOT HALT*
>
> The message where DDD was introduced specifies that DDD halts
> if and only if H0 halts.
>
That is simply ignorance of the details of software engineering.
>> Everyone here stupidly ignores that the pathological
>> relationship that DDD calls H0(DDD) changes the behavior
>> of DDD.
>
> If and only if it changes the behaviour of H0, which is possible if
> and only if H0 is not a pure function.
>
The directly executed H0 always uses this criteria and returns a
correct halt status for every input in its domain.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
--
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 | 2024-06-28 23:49 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5o089$1eli4$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #336090 |
On 6/28/24 8:40 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/28/2024 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-27 16:56:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 6/27/2024 10:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-27 14:10:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>> In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a
>>>>> decision problem is a computational problem that can be posed as
>>>>> a yes–no question of the input values.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
>>>>
>>>> That's right. But that question cannot be presented to the decider.
>>>> Only the input values can.
>>>>
>>> In other words you are saying that Turing machines do not
>>> typically understand English.
>>
>> I didn't mean it that generally, only about deciders, but yes, typical
>> Turing machines do not understand any English. More specifically, the
>> specification of a halt decider (or any typical decider) prevents it
>> from being asked in any language.
>>
>
> // The question: Is x > y ?
> bool GreaterThan(int x, int y) { return (x > y); }
>
> Deciders are always asked a yes/no question of their
> inputs in their own native language.
>
>>> None-the-less no-one here understands that every halt decider
>>> is only required to report on the behavior that its actual
>>> input actually maps to.
>>
>> As far as I have seen, most of them do. And not just maps but maps
>> in the way specified by the problem statement.
>>
> _DDD()
> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d pop ebp
> [00002183] c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator H0 cannot possibly return.
So?
>
> The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant
> because that is not the behavior of the input. Deciders
> compute the mapping from their actual finite string input
> to an output by a sequence of finite string transformations.
No, the "behavior" of the input is what the question being asked defines
it to be.
>
> In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution
> trace of the behavior of DDD correctly emulated by H0.
Which, is not a proper definition of the behavior of the input, as it
depends on more tham just the input, but on the machine the input is
given to.
Properties of the input for a decider need to be OBJECTIVE properties of
the input, and not SUBJECTIVE properties, as the mapping is defined to
be a mapping of JUST THE INPUT, and thus, doesn't include the decider it
is given to.
>
> The behavior of this input must include and cannot ignore
> the recursive emulation specified by the fact that DDD is
> calling its own emulator. That people think they can just
> pretend that this is not happening is ridiculous.
Right, and since your decider RESOLVES that recursion by aborting and
return, THAT BEHAIVIOR is part of the behavior of the input, since to
perform your definition of the input, you needed to include the decider
it was paired to in the input, that fixes the behavor to what that
decider did.
>
>>> Instead everyone here expects that the halt decider must map
>>> to the English description of what the authors of textbooks
>>> expect it to map to.
>>
>> Your "everyone" is a lie. As far as I have seen, nobody has expressed
>> that expectation, and several have said otherwise.
>>
> Everyone that states an opinion says that the decider
> must go by the textbook definitions of the problem thus
> not the problem instance actually encoded by the input.
It must go by THE DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM, if that is from a textbook,
then yes, the textbook is authorative, and to say otherwise is just a LIE.
The input doesn't encode the problem statement, so can't disagree with it.
>
>>> We already agreed that Turing machines do not typically
>>> understand English, so this assumption is stupid.
>>
>> You may have agreed but you failed to keep that agreement.
>>
>>> *DDD correctly simulated by H0 DOES NOT HALT*
>>
>> The message where DDD was introduced specifies that DDD halts
>> if and only if H0 halts.
>>
> That is simply ignorance of the details of software engineering.
Nope, that is just facts. YOU do not seem to have basic knowledge of
software engineering.
>
>>> Everyone here stupidly ignores that the pathological
>>> relationship that DDD calls H0(DDD) changes the behavior
>>> of DDD.
>>
>> If and only if it changes the behaviour of H0, which is possible if
>> and only if H0 is not a pure function.
>>
> The directly executed H0 always uses this criteria and returns a
> correct halt status for every input in its domain.
And, if H0 is the defined pure function, then so will any correcgtly
simulated copy of it, and do exactly the same thing.
>
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> stop running unless aborted then
>
> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
>
Nope, since no H0 actually does a "Correct Simulation" or a "Correct
Determination of a Correct Simultion" (by anything) since the only
defintion he uses of a "Correct Simulation" is a simulation that EXACTLY
reproduces the results of directly executed machine the input
represents, which means it will never abort its simulation.
Thus, H0 can NEVER correctly avail itself of the second clause.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 09:37 -0500 |
| Subject | H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4k906$3gc4t$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335483 |
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. > We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to continue talking about these things with you. This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained ignorance. If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* -- 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 11:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kaas$2218$14@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335560 |
On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, 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. >> > > We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other > halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is > that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to > continue talking about these things with you. > > This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our > conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained > ignorance. > > If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior > of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* > > You just seem to be stuck in your lies. There *IS* a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D), since we have that H(D,D) returns 0, so D(D) halts so the proper mapping of the input (D,D) is to 1. The fact that H didn't give that answer just makes it wrong, and if you change H, we need to start ALL OVER. So, since there IS a mapping from (D,D) -> 1 (for the D built on this H) it is totally proper to ask this H about this D,D I don't claim it is possible for this H to compute this mapping itself, and there is no requirement that it be able to. The proof shows that for ANY H that you might try to think up, there exist a specific input that this specific H will get wrong, and thus there can not exist an H that gets all input wrong, and thus there does not exist an algorithm to allow any decider to compute the mapping. That is perfectly fine, that just says that the Halting mapping is an uncomputable mapping, which is a perfectly valid result. Note, part of your problem is you express the question incorrectly, because you have a false idea of what is true. There is no requirement that H be able to "correctly simulate" its input to get the answer, and in fact, because we showed that Halting in non-computable, it means there is no "correct simulation" that the decider itself can do to get the answer. The other problem is how you try to express the input "D". By trying to exclude the code for H, you make D NOT a valid input to decide on, as we can only ask for the decision about a "computation", which means an algorithm (+input) that is ONLY dependent on that input, since the x86 code for just the function D doesn't meet that requrement, it isn't a valid representation for the input of the program D. The program D FULLY INCLUDES all the code that it calls, and such includes the x86 code of H, and everything that H calls. If you can't treat that is part of "the input" then your decider just fails at the requirements stage. Once we include that copy of H, when you argue about changing H, you can't change the copy of H that D uses, and if that means you can't actualy change H, then you can't and you are arguing out of false assumptions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 10:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kamr$3gc4t$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335565 |
On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, 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. >>> >> >> We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other >> halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is >> that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to >> continue talking about these things with you. >> >> This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our >> conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained >> ignorance. >> >> If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior >> of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* >> >> > > You just seem to be stuck in your lies. > > There *IS* a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D), *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* *ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BESIDES ALL OF THE STEPS WILL BE REJECTED* *OUT-OF-HAND AS WRONG ANSWER* _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 11:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kb10$2218$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335568 |
On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, 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. >>>> >>> >>> We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other >>> halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is >>> that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to >>> continue talking about these things with you. >>> >>> This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our >>> conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained >>> ignorance. >>> >>> If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior >>> of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* >>> >>> >> >> You just seem to be stuck in your lies. >> >> There *IS* a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D), > > *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* > *ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BESIDES ALL OF THE STEPS WILL BE REJECTED* > *OUT-OF-HAND AS WRONG ANSWER* Mappings don't HAVE steps. The mapping, for this H and D, is: (D,D) -> 1 This is true, as it can be shown that D(D) will Halt, since H(D,D) returns 0. By definition, Halting Machines mean the mapping of the representations of that machine are to Halting (which is represented by 1 for your decider). You are just showing a total ignorance of the topic. > > _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 10:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kdgf$3h3iu$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335570 |
On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other >>>> halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is >>>> that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to >>>> continue talking about these things with you. >>>> >>>> This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our >>>> conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained >>>> ignorance. >>>> >>>> If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior >>>> of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* >>>> >>>> >>> >>> You just seem to be stuck in your lies. >>> >>> There *IS* a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D), >> >> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >> *ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BESIDES ALL OF THE STEPS WILL BE REJECTED* >> *OUT-OF-HAND AS WRONG ANSWER* > > Mappings don't HAVE steps. > > The mapping, for this H and D, is: > > (D,D) -> 1 > *Wrong mapping* I am not asking for a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to a possible output from H(D,D). I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite string of the input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps of the behavior of D(D). The first six steps of the mapping from the input to H(D,D) and the behavior of D(D) are the execution/simulation of the machine code at address range [00000cfc] to [00000d06]. _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 | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 16:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kef8$2cg4$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335579 |
Am Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:54:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >> (D,D) -> 1 > I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite string of the > input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps of the behavior of D(D). D calls H, which by definition terminates. From its return value we fork to either enter an endless loop or halt. Then H (which is not allowed to simulate D if that doesn't halt) gives the result we just used to fork. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kev7$3h3iu$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335580 |
On 6/15/2024 11:11 AM, joes wrote: > Am Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:54:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: > >>>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >>> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >>> (D,D) -> 1 >> I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite string of the >> input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps of the behavior of D(D). *THIS SEEMS WAY WAY OVER YOUR HEAD* 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) The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] are simulated/executed. After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D. _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] > D calls H, which by definition terminates. From its return value we fork > to either enter an endless loop or halt. Then H (which is not allowed to > simulate D if that doesn't halt) gives the result we just used to fork. > -- 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 12:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kfbt$2219$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335583 |
On 6/15/24 12:19 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 11:11 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:54:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >> >>>>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >>>> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >>>> (D,D) -> 1 >>> I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite string of the >>> input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps of the behavior of D(D). > > *THIS SEEMS WAY WAY OVER YOUR HEAD* > 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 is that contingent on anyone but the programmer who claims to be able to write such a decider? > The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions > at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] > are simulated/executed. > > After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges > from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D > correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D. Which just shows that H can not actually correctly simulate all of the behavior of the input, but it always gives up and just guesses at an answer, which is wrong. > > _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] > > > >> D calls H, which by definition terminates. From its return value we fork >> to either enter an endless loop or halt. Then H (which is not allowed to >> simulate D if that doesn't halt) gives the result we just used to fork. >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kfkm$3hugj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335587 |
On 6/15/2024 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 12:19 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 11:11 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:54:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>> >>>>>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >>>>> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >>>>> (D,D) -> 1 >>>> I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite string of >>>> the >>>> input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps of the behavior of >>>> D(D). >> >> *THIS SEEMS WAY WAY OVER YOUR HEAD* >> 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 is that contingent on anyone but the programmer who claims to be > able to write such a decider? > > >> The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions >> at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] >> are simulated/executed. >> >> After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges >> from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D >> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D. > > Which just shows that H can not actually correctly simulate all of the > behavior of the input, but it always gives up and just guesses at an > answer, which is wrong. > >> >> _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] >> >> >> >>> D calls H, which by definition terminates. From its return value we fork >>> to either enter an endless loop or halt. Then H (which is not allowed to >>> simulate D if that doesn't halt) gives the result we just used to fork. >>> >> > ONLY addressing V3 -- 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 12:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kg81$2218$21@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335588 |
On 6/15/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 12:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 11:11 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:54:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >>>>>> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >>>>>> (D,D) -> 1 >>>>> I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite string >>>>> of the >>>>> input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps of the behavior of >>>>> D(D). >>> >>> *THIS SEEMS WAY WAY OVER YOUR HEAD* >>> 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 is that contingent on anyone but the programmer who claims to be >> able to write such a decider? >> >> >>> The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions >>> at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] >>> are simulated/executed. >>> >>> After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges >>> from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D >>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D. >> >> Which just shows that H can not actually correctly simulate all of the >> behavior of the input, but it always gives up and just guesses at an >> answer, which is wrong. >> >>> >>> _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] >>> >>> >>> >>>> D calls H, which by definition terminates. From its return value we >>>> fork >>>> to either enter an endless loop or halt. Then H (which is not >>>> allowed to >>>> simulate D if that doesn't halt) gives the result we just used to fork. >>>> >>> >> > > ONLY addressing V3 Which is why you will never be able to publsih, because they won't let you do that. You STILL are fundamentally ignoring the basic definitions of the system, and thus are just LYING about what you are doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 12:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kehu$2219$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335579 |
On 6/15/24 11:54 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other >>>>> halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is >>>>> that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to >>>>> continue talking about these things with you. >>>>> >>>>> This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our >>>>> conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained >>>>> ignorance. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior >>>>> of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> You just seem to be stuck in your lies. >>>> >>>> There *IS* a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D), >>> >>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >>> *ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BESIDES ALL OF THE STEPS WILL BE REJECTED* >>> *OUT-OF-HAND AS WRONG ANSWER* >> >> Mappings don't HAVE steps. >> >> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >> >> (D,D) -> 1 >> > > *Wrong mapping* > I am not asking for a mapping from the input to H(D,D) > to a possible output from H(D,D). So, are you admitting you are just giving up? Or you don't want shown the answer that proves you wrong? > > I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite > string of the input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps > of the behavior of D(D). Why? That isn't the "mapping" that defines what H is supposed to answer with, and isn't what would normally be called a "mapping" at all. That would just be the steps of simulaton. I guess you are just trying again to be deceitful by changing your definitions, just showing how your "native tounge" is lies. > > The first six steps of the mapping from the input to H(D,D) > and the behavior of D(D) are the execution/simulation of > the machine code at address range [00000cfc] to [00000d06]. So? And to be a "correct simulation" by your definitions, it must then simulate the Call H instruction, and then the instructions of H never to retutn to D again, unless it reaches the point where H return the value 0, which appears to be impossible to get to. > > _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 11:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kf6e$3h3iu$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335582 |
On 6/15/2024 11:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 11:54 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other >>>>>> halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is >>>>>> that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to >>>>>> continue talking about these things with you. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our >>>>>> conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained >>>>>> ignorance. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior >>>>>> of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You just seem to be stuck in your lies. >>>>> >>>>> There *IS* a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D), >>>> >>>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >>>> *ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BESIDES ALL OF THE STEPS WILL BE REJECTED* >>>> *OUT-OF-HAND AS WRONG ANSWER* >>> >>> Mappings don't HAVE steps. >>> >>> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >>> >>> (D,D) -> 1 >>> >> >> *Wrong mapping* >> I am not asking for a mapping from the input to H(D,D) >> to a possible output from H(D,D). > > So, are you admitting you are just giving up? Or you don't want shown > the answer that proves you wrong? > >> >> I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite >> string of the input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps >> of the behavior of D(D). > > Why? > *See my new V3 version of this* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:57 -0500 |
| Subject | H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4kh6a$3hugj$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335483 |
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. The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] are simulated/executed. What are the remaining steps that prove that the input to H(D,D) has the behavior of D(D) ??? _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 13:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4kial$2219$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335594 |
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, *YOU* are showing that YOU are not interested in Honest Dialog, because you have been backed in to a corner. The fact that you keep on trying to redefine terms in strange ways just shows that you intend to be deceptive, so you aren't even not interested in an Honest Dialog, but you want to engage in deception. It is YOUR problem to solve, and you are just proving that you can't do it and have wasted your life on stuff you can't prove. > > The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions > at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] > are simulated/executed. > > What are the remaining steps that prove that the input > to H(D,D) has the behavior of D(D) ??? THE DEFINITION YOU DUMMY. Remember, "Inputs" don't have behavior, as they are only "finite string" BEHAIVOR is what Programs have. By the definition of a Halting Decider, the decider is to report on the behavior of the program the input represents. SO, H(D,D) is asking about the Program D(D). Now, if H(D,D) is NOT asking about the behavior of program D(D), then you are just admitting that you lied and didn't follow the instructions of Linz or Sipser, because in both cases, the high level description of what those inputs do, is to ask H on the behaviors of themselves, and *YOU* coded that as a call to H(D,D). SO, either you admit that you have been LYING about building the input per the proof, or you are LYING about H(D,D) not asking about the behavior of D(D). Either way, you are just admitting to being an ignorant liar. > > _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 12:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4kjkr$3iid3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #335597 |
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* 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. > *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* -- 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 14:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4klb4$2219$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #335600 |
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? > 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, 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, not about the partial simulation of it done by the decider. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web