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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 11. Jun 2024, 19:07:06
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v4a07r$157ic$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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*
--
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
8 Jun 24 * Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)87olcott
8 Jun 24 +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
8 Jun 24 i`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
8 Jun 24 +- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
9 Jun 24 `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)83Fred. Zwarts
9 Jun 24  +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
9 Jun 24  i`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
9 Jun 24  +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)12olcott
9 Jun 24  i+- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24  i`* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)10Mikko
10 Jun 24  i `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)9olcott
11 Jun 24  i  +- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
11 Jun 24  i  +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)6Mikko
11 Jun 24  i  i`* DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt5olcott
12 Jun 24  i  i +- Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt1Richard Damon
12 Jun 24  i  i `* Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt3Mikko
12 Jun 24  i  i  `* Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt2olcott
15 Jun 24  i  i   `- Re: DDD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly halt1Mikko
15 Jun 24  i  `- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Mikko
10 Jun 24  `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)68olcott
10 Jun 24   +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)62Fred. Zwarts
10 Jun 24   i+* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)6olcott
10 Jun 24   ii+* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)3joes
10 Jun 24   iii`* Proof that D correctly simulated by H has different behavior than D(D)2olcott
12 Jun 24   iii `- Re: Proof that D correctly simulated by H has different behavior than D(D)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24   ii+- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   ii`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24   i`* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)55olcott
10 Jun 24   i +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)53Fred. Zwarts
10 Jun 24   i i`* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)52olcott
11 Jun 24   i i `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)51Fred. Zwarts
11 Jun 24   i i  `* D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten50olcott
12 Jun 24   i i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten49Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten48olcott
12 Jun 24   i i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten47Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten46olcott
12 Jun 24   i i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten45Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten44olcott
12 Jun 24   i i         `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten43Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i          `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten42olcott
13 Jun 24   i i           `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten41Fred. Zwarts
13 Jun 24   i i            `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten40olcott
13 Jun 24   i i             `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten39Fred. Zwarts
13 Jun 24   i i              `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten38olcott
14 Jun 24   i i               `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten37Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 24   i i                `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten36olcott
14 Jun 24   i i                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten35Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 24   i i                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten34olcott
14 Jun 24   i i                   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten33Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 24   i i                    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten32olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten31Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten30olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                       +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24   i i                       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten28Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten27olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                         +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24   i i                         `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten25Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                          `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten24olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                           +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24   i i                           `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten22Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                            `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten21olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                             +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
16 Jun 24   i i                             `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten19Fred. Zwarts
16 Jun 24   i i                              `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten18olcott
16 Jun 24   i i                               +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
16 Jun 24   i i                               +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten5Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 24   i i                               i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten4olcott
17 Jun 24   i i                               i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten3Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 24   i i                               i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten2olcott
17 Jun 24   i i                               i   `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 24   i i                               `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten11Mikko
17 Jun 24   i i                                `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten10olcott
18 Jun 24   i i                                 +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten2Mikko
18 Jun 24   i i                                 i`- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1olcott
18 Jun 24   i i                                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten7Fred. Zwarts
18 Jun 24   i i                                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten6olcott
18 Jun 24   i i                                   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten5Fred. Zwarts
18 Jun 24   i i                                    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten4olcott
18 Jun 24   i i                                     +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Fred. Zwarts
18 Jun 24   i i                                     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten2Mikko
18 Jun 24   i i                                      `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1olcott
12 Jun 24   i `- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24   `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)5Richard Damon
10 Jun 24    `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)4olcott
10 Jun 24     +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2joes
10 Jun 24     i`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1olcott
11 Jun 24     `- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal