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

On 6/7/24 3:31 PM, 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

But what have people disagreed about on the actual code.
DO you deny that the actual x86 code when run will halt since your HH(DD,DD) will return 0 to let it be a decider?

 then we certainly cannot trust these people with more
difficult issues that require at least some slight degree
of judgment call.

But nothing should require a "judgement 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.

But that is just a LIE, because that isn't the quesiton of the Halting problem, only of your POOP.
The Halting problem SPECIFICALLY asks the question if the machine described by the input, that is the direct execution of DD(DD), will halt or not when run.
Please show your reference that it can be ANYTHING like what you are claiming, that is just your own pathological lie because you can not face realitiy.
Since you lie about that, why should anyone believe your statements about other things.

 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.

Which isn't a proof, but does show a possible origin for your strawman of why you thought you could change the question.

 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 shows they were simulated correct for as far as they went.
The simulation of the CALL H is just WRONG,
Either you need to show the actual x86 instructions of HH being simulated,
or the simulation needs to show the equivalent return of HH, which since you claim it correctly returns 0 would be that.
Any simulation that shows that HH will never return is just wrong, or is ending with invalid or unsound logic from a correct partial simulation (which is what sort of happens). Your logic "forgets" that if HH decides to abort its simulation, then ALL copies of HH will do that an thus not get stuck in the loop.
So HH either needs to get stuck in that loop by not deciding, and thus fails to be the needed decider, or it uses incorrect logic to get the wrong answer.
Which choice will be fixed by the algorithm that HH uses.

 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.
 

It has shown that you mind was on wrong things since then.

 Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.

WHO CARES?
It has been proven that answer doesn't tell us what we need to know, and is just your strawman.

 _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.
 

Which is just an admititon that you are not working on the halting problem, since that IS based on the behavior of directly executed DD(DD) and not any form of simulation at all.
So, you are just admitting that all your work is just deceptions and lies.