Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #106725

Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)

From Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups comp.theory, sci.logic
Subject Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)
Date 2024-06-08 16:32 -0400
Organization i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID <v42f59$3cg3t$29@i2pn2.org> (permalink)
References <v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/8/24 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed
> DD(DD) we must first see that the Sipser approved criteria
> have been met:
> 
> <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 words10/13/2022>

But it hasn't since the Sipser criteria is based on "Correct SImulation" 
meaning a simulation the exactly reproduces the behavior of the directly 
executed code, which means a simulation that doesn't stop until it 
reaches a final state (even if that takes forever).

H does NOT do that sort of simulation, nor does it correctly determine 
that THIS input (and thus still calling the original H), if simulated by 
that sort of simulator will not halt, so you never satisfy the 
requirements, so can never claim the right of the second clause.

This has been explained to you many times, and your repeating it just 
shows a reckless disregard for the truth, and could open you up to a 
defamation suit by Professor Sipser. It also shows that your 
understanding of what other people say needs to be kept suspect, and you 
are proving yourself to be a pathological liar.

> 
> 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.
> 
> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.


And why do we care?
> 
> _DD()
> [00001e12] 55         push ebp
> [00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
> [00001e15] 51         push ecx
> [00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
> [00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
> 
> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
> above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
> by HH and simulated in the correct order.
> 
> In other words the first seven steps of DD correctly simulated
> by HH call HH(DD,DD) to repeat these first seven steps. HH then
> simulates itself simulating DD until this second instance of DD
> calls another HH(DD,DD) to repeat these first seven steps again.

Nope, by your definition


> 
> New slave_stack at:10306d
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113075
>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>   address   address   data      code       language
>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> [00001c22][00113061][00113065] 55         push ebp
> [00001c23][00113061][00113065] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [00001c25][0011305d][00103031] 51         push ecx
> [00001c26][0011305d][00103031] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001c29][00113059][00001c22] 50         push eax         ; push DD
> [00001c2a][00113059][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001c2d][00113055][00001c22] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
> [00001c2e][00113051][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342    ; call HH
> New slave_stack at:14da95

And this does not happen by your definition of a correst simulation, but 
the trace SHOULD continue at address 00001342, and show the code of HH

What do you think the actual x86 instrucitons mean?

It just shows your intent to decieve.

The following does NOT happen again in the context of the correct x86 
simulation of the code given to HH.

So, your trace just proves that you are a LIAR.

And this is not an honest mistake, as you have been told this many 
times, but you are unable to accept the truth.

> [00001c22][0015da89][0015da8d] 55         push ebp
> [00001c23][0015da89][0015da8d] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [00001c25][0015da85][0014da59] 51         push ecx
> [00001c26][0015da85][0014da59] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001c29][0015da81][00001c22] 50         push eax         ; push DD
> [00001c2a][0015da81][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001c2d][0015da7d][00001c22] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
> [00001c2e][0015da79][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342    ; call HH
> Local Halt Decider: Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
> 
> The above is the complete proof that DD correctly simulated
> by any HH that can possibly exist never stops running without
> having its simulation aborted by HH (or crashing for OOM error).
> 
> 

Nope, it shows that you can't even follow your own definitions.

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 13:47 -0500
  Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 14:49 -0500
    Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 16:32 -0400
  Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 16:32 -0400
  Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-09 08:33 +0200
    Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 07:21 -0500
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
    Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:13 -0500
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 10:48 +0300
        Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:09 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 11:02 +0300
            DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:24 -0500
              Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:46 -0400
              Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-12 10:20 +0300
                Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 10:17 -0500
                Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-15 15:03 +0300
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-15 14:59 +0300
    Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 00:17 -0500
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-10 09:09 +0200
        Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 08:52 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 15:35 +0000
            Proof that D correctly simulated by H has different behavior than D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:39 -0500
              Re: Proof that D correctly simulated by H has different behavior than D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:59 -0400
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-10 21:15 +0200
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:48 -0400
        Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 14:21 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-10 21:41 +0200
            Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 14:47 -0500
              Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-11 09:21 +0200
                D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:07 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 08:18 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 09:47 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 20:19 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 13:24 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 21:13 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 14:20 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 21:46 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 14:53 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-13 10:15 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 07:44 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-13 21:33 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 14:41 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-14 11:59 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 07:49 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-14 21:00 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 14:18 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-14 22:03 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 15:46 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-15 11:03 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 07:12 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-15 16:06 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:13 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 10:29 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-15 16:37 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:48 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:02 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-15 17:12 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:23 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:39 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-16 08:21 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 07:37 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-16 21:08 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 08:39 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-17 16:21 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 09:35 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-17 16:51 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-17 10:22 +0300
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 08:07 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 10:54 +0300
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 07:55 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-18 11:16 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 07:43 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-18 17:25 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 10:39 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-18 17:53 +0200
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 19:32 +0300
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 11:41 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:17 -0400
      Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
        Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 12:54 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 18:21 +0000
            Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 13:48 -0500
          Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400

csiph-web