Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 02. Jun 2024, 23:20:18
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v3ir73$2qu71$9@i2pn2.org>
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 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/2/24 6:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/2/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/2/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/2/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/2/24 4:50 PM, olcott wrote:
*We can see that the following DD cannot possibly halt*
>
Unless the HH(DD,DD) aborts its simulation and returns 0, then DD(DD) will ALWAYS halt when directly called, which is the definition of "Halting".
>
Not your LIE that it pertains to partial simulations.
>
*when correctly simulated by every HH that can possibly exist*
>
Except for EVERY HH that aborts its simulation and returns 0
>
>
This may be an ADD thing.
For every HH that aborts its simulation and returns 0
DD correctly simulated by this HH *DID NOT HALT AND NEVER WILL HALT*
>
Except you mental problems are getting in YOUR way.
>
You said that "DD Can not halt" NOT "the simulation by H of DD can not Halt"
>
 *I said neither of those things so it may be an ADD problem*
I guess your medication is making you blind.
Read the top line quoted from you on 6/2/24 4:50 PM
You said:
    "*We can see that the following DD cannot possibly halt*"
Remember, Halting is defined as the MACHINE reaching a fianl state, so trying to qualify it with a partial simulation is an irrelevent qualification.

 
Those are DIFFERENT statements.
>
DD WILL Halt.
>
Your claim, that I will neither confirm or deny (until you can show why I should), is that the simulation by H can never reach the statement after the call instruction.
>
 *Still not quite what I said*
But you did in your message from 3:54 today earier in the thread:
   DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
   reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e]

 
That is NOT a definition of "Halting", and any claim that is it is just a LIE.
>
>
Its either ADD thing in which case you salvation is not in any danger
or it is not a ADD thing.
>
Nope, it is YORU STUPIDITY.
>
I might suggest you talk to your oncologist, as your arguements seem to have decayed in the last year.
>
DD(DD) Halts if HH(DD,DD) returns 0. PROVEN FACT.
>
You can run it yourself to see.
>
>
So, I guess you are saying that NONE of your HH can EVER stop their simulation and return 0, so ALL your HH fail to be deciders by not returning any answer.
>
That, or you are just admitting to being the pathological liar that you have shown yourself to be.
>
>
When DD simulated by every HH that can possibly exist does not
halt this DOES PROVE THAT EACH DD SIMULATED BY HH DOES NOT HALT.
>
If it is true that every HH that can possible exist can not simulate its ONE DD (not every on every, as you haven't shown that) to a final state, that doesn't even technically show the simulation doesn't halt, unless
 Right and in this same way we cannot tell that every rock that
weighs more than five pounds weighs more than five pounds.
We may find some five pound rocks that only weigh three pounds.
RED HERRING DIVERSION.
You are just admitting that you have run out of plausable lies.

 *We can see that the following DD cannot possibly halt*
*when correctly simulated by every HH that can possibly exist*
JUST NONSENSE WORDS AS AN ABORTED SIMULATION DOESN'T TALK ABOUT HALTING.
DD DOES Halt, as Halting talks about the behavior of the machine,
So, you are just proving your stupidity.

 typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int DD(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
 _DD()
[00001c22] 55         push ebp
[00001c23] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25] 51         push ecx
[00001c26] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29] 50         push eax        ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d] 51         push ecx        ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
[00001c33] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00001c36] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00001c39] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00001c3d] 7402       jz 00001c41
[00001c3f] ebfe       jmp 00001c3f
[00001c41] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00001c44] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00001c46] 5d         pop ebp
[00001c47] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0038) [00001c47]
  

Date Sujet#  Auteur
28 May 24 * D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets360olcott
29 May 24 +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets307Richard Damon
29 May 24 i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets306olcott
29 May 24 i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets305Richard Damon
29 May 24 i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets304olcott
29 May 24 i   +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets26Mikko
29 May 24 i   i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets25olcott
30 May 24 i   i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets24Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets23olcott
30 May 24 i   i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets22Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets21olcott
30 May 24 i   i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets20Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets19olcott
30 May 24 i   i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets18Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets17olcott
30 May 24 i   i         `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets16Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i          `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets15olcott
30 May 24 i   i           `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets14Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i            `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets13olcott
30 May 24 i   i             `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets12Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i              `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets11olcott
30 May 24 i   i               +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets4joes
30 May 24 i   i               i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets3olcott
30 May 24 i   i               i +- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1immibis
31 May 24 i   i               i `- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
30 May 24 i   i               +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets5immibis
30 May 24 i   i               i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets4Richard Damon
31 May 24 i   i               i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets3Mikko
31 May 24 i   i               i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets2immibis
31 May 24 i   i               i   `- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Mikko
30 May 24 i   i               `- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
29 May 24 i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets277Richard Damon
29 May 24 i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets276olcott
29 May 24 i     +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets274Alan Mackenzie
29 May 24 i     i+* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets7olcott
29 May 24 i     ii+* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets5Mike Terry
29 May 24 i     iii+* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets2olcott
30 May 24 i     iiii`- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
29 May 24 i     iii`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets2olcott
30 May 24 i     iii `- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     ii`- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
29 May 24 i     i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets266Ben Bacarisse
29 May 24 i     i `* Two dozen people were simply wrong265olcott
29 May 24 i     i  +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong4Alan Mackenzie
29 May 24 i     i  i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong3olcott
29 May 24 i     i  i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong2Python
29 May 24 i     i  i  `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong1olcott
30 May 24 i     i  +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong (including Olcott)233Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise232olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise230Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise229olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise228Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise227olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i   `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise226Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i    `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise225olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i     +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise15Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i+* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise2olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i     ii`- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise1Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise12olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise11Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise10olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i   +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise5Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i   i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise4olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i   i `* Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise3Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i   i  `* Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise2olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i     i   i   `- Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise1Richard Damon
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i   `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise4joes
30 May 24 i     i  i i     i    +- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise1olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i     i    `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise2Mikko
31 May 24 i     i  i i     i     `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- Mike Terry1olcott
30 May 24 i     i  i i     `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise209Mikko
30 May 24 i     i  i i      `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise208olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i       +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise205Richard Damon
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise204olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise195Richard Damon
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise194olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise193Richard Damon
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise192olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i   `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise191Richard Damon
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i    `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise190olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i     `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise189Richard Damon
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i      `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down188olcott
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i i       `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down187Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i        `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down186olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i         `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down185Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i          `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down184olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down182Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down181olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down111Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down110olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down108Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down107olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down105Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down104olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down103Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down102olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down92Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down91olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down13Fred. Zwarts
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i i`* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down12olcott
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down11Fred. Zwarts
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down74Richard Damon
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i +- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1immibis
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down2joes
2 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i i   `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down9Mikko
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i i `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1immibis
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i i `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1Fred. Zwarts
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down50Wasell
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i +* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down16Fred. Zwarts
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down3joes
1 Jun 24 i     i  i i       i i           `- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down1immibis
31 May 24 i     i  i i       i `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise8Mikko
31 May 24 i     i  i i       `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise2Mikko
30 May 24 i     i  i `- Re: H is an incorrect x86 emulator1immibis
30 May 24 i     i  +- Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong1immibis
1 Jun 24 i     i  `* Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong26Mikko
30 May 24 i     `- Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets1Richard Damon
30 May 24 +* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders38olcott
31 May 24 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets14Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal