Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten

From	olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.theory, sci.logic
Subject	Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date	2024-06-12 13:24 -0500
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<v4cp5s$1pe0q$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <v48tt4$tqad$1@dont-email.me> <v4a07r$157ic$1@dont-email.me> <v4beis$1h0p6$1@dont-email.me> <v4cceu$1mi5i$2@dont-email.me> <v4corm$1p0h0$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/12/2024 1:19 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 12.jun.2024 om 16:47 schreef olcott:
>> On 6/12/2024 1:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 11.jun.2024 om 19:07 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/11/2024 2:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 10.jun.2024 om 21:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>
>>>>> Proven false. The direct execution does not ignore the call to H. 
>>>>
>>>> Yes that is the second big mistake that I am aware that I made
>>>> within the last year.
>>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> The other big mistake was what I said happens when Linz H is
>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. I forgot what I said and I forgot what the
>>>> correct answer was. I do remember this is was my big mistake.
>>>>
>>>> No one has ever shown any actual error with my analysis of embedded_H
>>>> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. It is a verified fact that is over everyone's head
>>>> besides mine that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H cannot
>>>> possibly reach its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone assumes that I must be wrong and only have dogma to base
>>>> this assumption on. I have reasoning to prove that they are wrong
>>>> yet this reasoning is over their heads.
>>>>
>>>> I have made isomorphic reasoning 100% concrete with this example
>>>> and every has simply ignored this reasoning 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*
>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
>>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>>>>
>>>> _D()
>>>> [00000cfc](01) 55          push ebp
>>>> [00000cfd](02) 8bec        mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00000cff](03) 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00000d02](01) 50          push eax       ; push D
>>>> [00000d03](03) 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00000d06](01) 51          push ecx       ; push D
>>>> [00000d07](05) e800feffff  call 00000b0c  ; call H
>>>> [00000d0c](03) 83c408      add esp,+08
>>>> [00000d0f](02) 85c0        test eax,eax
>>>> [00000d11](02) 7404        jz 00000d17
>>>> [00000d13](02) 33c0        xor eax,eax
>>>> [00000d15](02) eb05        jmp 00000d1c
>>>> [00000d17](05) b801000000  mov eax,00000001
>>>> [00000d1c](01) 5d          pop ebp
>>>> [00000d1d](01) c3          ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]
>>>>
>>>> It is impossible for D correctly simulated by H to ever reach
>>>> its simulated final state at its own machine address [00000d1d].
>>>>
>>>> People disagree with this by changing the subject to D not simulated
>>>> by H as all. They have been indoctrinated into believing that this
>>>> strawman deception is correct yet
>>>>
>>>> cannot possibly show the detailed steps of how D correctly simulated
>>>> by H can possibly reach its own simulated machine address of 
>>>> [00000d1d].
>>>> *Here are the steps that prove that I am correct*
>>>>
>>>> (1) Executed H simulates the first seven instructions of D.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Simulated D calls simulated H(D,D) to simulate itself again.
>>>>
>>>> (3) Simulated H simulates the first seven instructions of simulated
>>>>      simulated D.
>>>>
>>>> (4) Simulated simulated D simulated by simulated H calls
>>>>      simulated simulated H(D,D) to simulate itself again.
>>>>
>>>> *HERE ARE ALL OF CONCRETE DETAILS OF THAT*
>>>> *Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:cfc*
>>>> [00000cfc][00211839][0021183d](01)  55          push ebp      ; begin D
>>>> [00000cfd][00211839][0021183d](02)  8bec        mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00000cff][00211839][0021183d](03)  8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00000d02][00211835][00000cfc](01)  50          push eax      ; push D
>>>> [00000d03][00211835][00000cfc](03)  8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00000d06][00211831][00000cfc](01)  51          push ecx      ; push D
>>>> [00000d07][0021182d][00000d0c](05)  e800feffff  call 00000b0c ; call H
>>>> *This call to H is simulated by directly executed H*
>>>>
>>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine          assembly
>>>>   address   address   data      code             language
>>>>   ========  ========  ========  ===============  =============
>>>> [00000cfc][0025c261][0025c265](01)  55          push ebp      ; begin D
>>>> [00000cfd][0025c261][0025c265](02)  8bec        mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00000cff][0025c261][0025c265](03)  8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00000d02][0025c25d][00000cfc](01)  50          push eax      ; push D
>>>> [00000d03][0025c25d][00000cfc](03)  8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00000d06][0025c259][00000cfc](01)  51          push ecx      ; push D
>>>> [00000d07][0025c255][00000d0c](05)  e800feffff  call 00000b0c ; call H
>>>> *This call to H would be simulated by simulated executed H*
>>>> *Infinitely Nested Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no infinite nested simulation detected,
>>
>> If I am wrong then a specific sequence of steps of D correctly
>> simulated by H where D terminates normally can be provided.
> 
> No infinite execution has been detected, 

You seem to simply not understand that D correctly simulated
by H would eventually crash due to out-of-memory error.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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