Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 08. Jun 2024, 14:36:40
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v41mp8$2kanc$5@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/8/2024 8:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/8/24 8:20 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/7/2024 11:18 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 15:01 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 6/7/2024 2:43 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 14:31 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote:
On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>
_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.
>
That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it?  Less than a
few
days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
instructions"
simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N).  It seems that
the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your criterion.
>
That now seems to have changed.
>
>
Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
improve my words on the basis of reviews.
>
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>
_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.
>
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
>
>
And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>
More dishonest deflection.
The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
executed DD(DD).
>
>
The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:
IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return.
ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return.
ELSE HP is undecidable
>
You keep solving POOH !!! and made lots of lies.
>
Surrender to my GUR, son.
>
>
If people are going to be dishonest about simple things
such as the actual behavior of actual x86 code where
they consistently deny verified facts
>
then we certainly cannot trust these people with more
difficult issues that require at least some slight degree
of judgment call.
>
When we can show that even in the halting problem HH
is only required to report on the behavior of DD correctly
simulated by HH these dishonest people merely use that
as another deflection point for their dishonesty.
>
The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently
focused one one single point until the dishonest people
finally admit that they have simply ignored all the proofs
for three solid years.
>
On 6/5/2024 10:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
   > On 6/5/24 11:44 PM, olcott wrote:
   >>
   >> THIS IS ALL THAT YOU WILL EVER GET TO TALK
   >> TO ME ABOUT UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
   >> I AM CORRECT OR YOU PROVE THAT I AM INCORRECT
   >
   > But, as I said, I won't acknowledge that you
   > are correct, because I am not willing to put
   > that effort into your worthless claim.
   >
>
Here is the earliest version of the proof (that everyone
has simply ignored for three solid years) that P correctly
simulated by H would never stop running unless aborted.
>
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>
The fact that the execution trace of P derived by the executed
H and the simulated H exactly matches the machine code of P
proves that each instruction of P was simulated correctly and
in the correct order this conclusively proves that P is correctly
simulated by both of these instances of H.
>
It has proved this since 2021-09-26 and everyone has made
sure to ignore this proof so that they can maintain their false
assumption.
>
>
>
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>
_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.
>
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
>
>
I recalled now. You knew what the Halting Problem is. But soon, you started to insist
POOH is correct by fabricating ...(lots of things)...
Wake up, your trick won't work.
>
>
All the while that you insist on lying about
>
the verified fact that DD correctly simulated by
HH cannot possibly stop running without having its
simulation aborted by HH.
>
You won't get to talk to me about anything else such
as why the above statement matters.
>
If you want to choose to be a liar thus <is> the
consequence that you get.
>
>
The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:
IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return.
ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return.
ELSE HP is undecidable
>
What is your answer? (the last time I saw POOH, it does not report anything)
>
>
I incorporate by reference
(a) The x86 language
(b) The notion of an x86 emulator
>
(c) I provide this complete function
 And what do you do with them?
 
>
void DDD(int (*x)())
{
   HH(x, x);
}
>
_DDD()
[00001de2] 55         push ebp
[00001de3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001de5] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001de8] 50         push eax         ; push DD
[00001de9] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dec] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
[00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382    ; call HH
[00001df2] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00001df5] 5d         pop ebp
[00001df6] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
>
Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
instruction.
 Which isn't a truth preserving operations from the truth-makers to something, Just a claim, so not a proof.
 And proving a negative is hard.
 
>
To anyone having this mandatory prerequisite knowledge
(perhaps not you) every x86 emulation of DDD by any
x86 emulator H continually repeats the first seven lines
of DDD until it crashes due to out-of-memory error.
>
 But only if HH NEVER aborts its simulation.
 
When HH sees what we see that DDD correctly simulated by HH
can never reach its own machine address in any finite number
of steps of correct simulation and HH sees this by recognizing
the non-halting behavior pattern in a finite sequence of steps
then HH is correct to abort its simulation and reject DDD
as non-halting.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
4 Jun 24 * At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact210olcott
5 Jun 24 +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact206Richard Damon
5 Jun 24 i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact205olcott
5 Jun 24 i `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact204Richard Damon
5 Jun 24 i  `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact203olcott
5 Jun 24 i   `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact202Richard Damon
5 Jun 24 i    `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact201olcott
5 Jun 24 i     +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact196Richard Damon
5 Jun 24 i     i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact195olcott
5 Jun 24 i     i `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact194Richard Damon
5 Jun 24 i     i  `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact193olcott
5 Jun 24 i     i   +- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact1joes
6 Jun 24 i     i   `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact191Richard Damon
6 Jun 24 i     i    `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact190olcott
6 Jun 24 i     i     `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact189Richard Damon
6 Jun 24 i     i      `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact188olcott
6 Jun 24 i     i       `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact187Richard Damon
6 Jun 24 i     i        `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact186olcott
6 Jun 24 i     i         `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact185Richard Damon
6 Jun 24 i     i          `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact184olcott
6 Jun 24 i     i           `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact183Richard Damon
6 Jun 24 i     i            `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact182olcott
6 Jun 24 i     i             `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact181Richard Damon
6 Jun 24 i     i              `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact180olcott
6 Jun 24 i     i               `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact179Richard Damon
6 Jun 24 i     i                `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact178olcott
6 Jun 24 i     i                 `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact177Richard Damon
6 Jun 24 i     i                  +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact170olcott
6 Jun 24 i     i                  i+- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact1wij
6 Jun 24 i     i                  i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact168Richard Damon
6 Jun 24 i     i                  i `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact167olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i  `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact166Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i   `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard165olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard6olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard5Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard4olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard3Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i   `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard2olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i    `- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard157Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard156olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard155Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard17olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  i+* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard13Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  ii`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard12olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  ii `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard11Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  ii  `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard10olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  ii   +* Re: Last communication with Richard2Rich Yard Daemon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  ii   i`- Re: Last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  ii   `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard7Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  ii    `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard6olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  ii     `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard5Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  ii      +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard2olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  ii      i`- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  ii      `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard2olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  ii       `- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard3Fred. Zwarts
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  i `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard2olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  i  `- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i  `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard137olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i   +- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1immibis
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i   +- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i   `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard134Alan Mackenzie
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i    `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard133olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard131Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard130olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard105wij
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i+* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard16immibis
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard15joes
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard14olcott
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii  `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard13Mikko
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii   `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard12olcott
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii    +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard3Richard Damon
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii    i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard2olcott
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii    i `- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
9 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii    `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard8Mikko
9 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii     `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard7olcott
9 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii      `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard6Mikko
9 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii       `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard5olcott
10 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii        `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard4Mikko
10 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii         `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard3olcott
11 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii          +- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Mikko
12 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i ii          `- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard88olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard24wij
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard23olcott
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard22wij
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i  `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard21olcott
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard17Fred. Zwarts
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard16olcott
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard12Fred. Zwarts
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard11olcott
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i i +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard9Fred. Zwarts
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i i i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard8olcott
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i i i +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard6Fred. Zwarts
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i i i i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard5olcott
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i i i i +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard3Fred. Zwarts
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i i i i i`* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard2olcott
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i i i i i `- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i i i i `- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i i i `- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i i `- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   i `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard3Richard Damon
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i i   `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard3Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i +- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard53Alan Mackenzie
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i i `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard9joes
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i +* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard7Richard Damon
8 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     i `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard17Mikko
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    i     `- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1joes
7 Jun 24 i     i                  i    `- Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard1immibis
6 Jun 24 i     i                  `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact6olcott
6 Jun 24 i     `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact4ornott
5 Jun 24 `* Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact3Fred. Zwarts

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal