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

Groups > comp.theory > #106995

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

From "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups comp.theory, sci.logic
Subject Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
Date 2024-06-12 21:13 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <v4cs0b$1p0h1$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (8 earlier) <v4a07r$157ic$1@dont-email.me> <v4beis$1h0p6$1@dont-email.me> <v4cceu$1mi5i$2@dont-email.me> <v4corm$1p0h0$1@dont-email.me> <v4cp5s$1pe0q$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Op 12.jun.2024 om 20:24 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 

Exactly. A correct H simulated by H does not exist. But, again, you 
misses the point. It was in the part that you omitted.
So, again:

No infinite execution has been detected, only a premature abortion. That 
is a much better explanation why H did not return.

It is like an archer who is asked to hit a target twice as far as his 
bow can reach. His bow reaches 50m and the target is at 100m. He misses.
Then he uses a new bow that reaches 100m, but now the target is at 200m. 
He is able to reach the old target, but again he misses the target for 
the new bow. He can continue, if the bow reaches further, the target is 
also further away. But note, the target is never at infinity.
Similarly, the target of the simulator is never at infinity, but always 
some steps further that the simulation goes. You can make a simulator 
that simulates further, which can reach the target of the old simulator, 
but it is unable to reach its own target. So, there is no infinite 
recursion, but the simulation always misses the target. The simulation 
is never able to simulate itself up to the end. It always aborts 
prematurely.

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