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

Groups > comp.theory > #106954

Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years

From Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups comp.theory
Subject Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years
Date 2024-06-11 21:44 -0400
Organization i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID <v4auhs$3nf9m$3@i2pn2.org> (permalink)
References (11 earlier) <v45kiu$3ue8q$2@dont-email.me> <v45lak$3h641$3@i2pn2.org> <v45m0m$3ukqt$1@dont-email.me> <v46drm$13ke$1@news.muc.de> <v4737k$ggn5$2@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/10/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/10/2024 3:35 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>> THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION.
>>>>> STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.
>>
>>>> Then stop Lying!
>>
>>> *I never have lied and you know it*
>>
>> You have frequently lied.  All these times when you have called your
>> notions "verified facts",
> 
> They have been verified facts for three years and everyone
> simply ignored the verification.
> 
> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*




> 
> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
> 
> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same
> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions
> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below).

Which shows that H can not have actually correctly fully simulated the 
input, and thus its simulation doesn't tell us about halting.

> 
> _D()
> [00000cfc](01) 55          push ebp
> [00000cfd](02) 8bec        mov ebp,esp
> [00000cff](03) 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000d02](01) 50          push eax       ; push D
> [00000d03](03) 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000d06](01) 51          push ecx       ; push D
> [00000d07](05) e800feffff  call 00000b0c  ; call H
> [00000d0c](03) 83c408      add esp,+08
> [00000d0f](02) 85c0        test eax,eax
> [00000d11](02) 7404        jz 00000d17
> [00000d13](02) 33c0        xor eax,eax
> [00000d15](02) eb05        jmp 00000d1c
> [00000d17](05) b801000000  mov eax,00000001
> [00000d1c](01) 5d          pop ebp
> [00000d1d](01) c3          ret
> Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]
> 
> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the
> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine
> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D*

Nope. In fact, if H ignores that instruction, it BY YOUR DEFINITION 
hasn't done a correct simulation.

> 
> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
> The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.
> 

No it isn't. A correct simulation thorugh the call H must show the 
simulation of the function H.

THis has not been shown, so you can't have a "verifited" fact about it, 
just further proving that "verified by Olcott" can't be taken as 
verified at all.

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

Thread

Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:19 -0500
  Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:07 -0500
    Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 17:59 +0000
      Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 13:23 -0500
        Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 19:13 +0000
          Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:02 -0500
            Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:23 -0400
              Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:26 -0500
                Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 20:41 -0400
                Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 19:56 -0500
                Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:10 -0400
                Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:23 -0500
                Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 21:36 -0400
                D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 20:48 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:16 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:39 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 22:45 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 21:53 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 23:09 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:21 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- losing a defamation case Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-10 08:35 +0000
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:39 -0500
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 15:33 +0000
                Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 21:44 -0400
            Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 08:40 +0000
              Re: Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:27 -0500

csiph-web