On 6/11/2024 4:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-10 15:33:23 +0000, olcott said:
On 6/10/2024 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-10 08:35:09 +0000, joes said:
>
Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>
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).
>
_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]
>
In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the directly
executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine address
[00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D*
I don't understand. Does D(D) ignore the call to H(D,D)?
>
H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.
>
What instructions does H use to output that trace and how those
>
I don't remember it has been two years.
I am looking into this again.
>
instructions are simulated when H is simulated?
>
>
They are simulated by
u32 DebugStep(Registers* master_state,
Registers* slave_state, Decoded_Line_Of_Code* decoded)
{ return 0; }
>
This depends on libx86emu.
>
And why does H output any traces? That is not required by its
>
The traces are output so that people can directly see the
same infinite recursion behavior pattern that H sees and
thus know that H really is required to abort ts simulation.
Looks like they don't serve that purpose. Perhaps you should
change something.
*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; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Date | Sujet | # | | Auteur |
10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 373 | | olcott |
10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 10 | | joes |
10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 4 | | Mikko |
10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 3 | | olcott |
11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 2 | | Mikko |
11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 1 | | olcott |
10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 5 | | olcott |
10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 4 | | joes |
10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 3 | | olcott |
10 Jun 24 | Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- | 2 | | joes |
10 Jun 24 | Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- | 1 | | olcott |
10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 362 | | Richard Damon |
11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error | 361 | | olcott |
11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error | 360 | | Richard Damon |
11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error | 359 | | olcott |
11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error | 358 | | Richard Damon |
11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 357 | | olcott |
12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 355 | | Richard Damon |
12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 354 | | olcott |
12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 302 | | Python |
12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 301 | | olcott |
12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 300 | | Richard Damon |
12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 299 | | olcott |
12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 298 | | Richard Damon |
12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 297 | | olcott |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 296 | | Richard Damon |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 295 | | olcott |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 288 | | Richard Damon |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 287 | | olcott |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 285 | | Richard Damon |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 284 | | olcott |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 283 | | Richard Damon |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 282 | | olcott |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 281 | | Richard Damon |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 280 | | olcott |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 274 | | Richard Damon |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 273 | | olcott |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 272 | | Richard Damon |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 271 | | olcott |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 270 | | Richard Damon |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 269 | | olcott |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 1 | | joes |
14 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 267 | | Richard Damon |
14 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 236 | | olcott |
14 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 235 | | Richard Damon |
14 Jun 24 | H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 234 | | olcott |
14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 231 | | Richard Damon |
14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 230 | | olcott |
14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 229 | | Richard Damon |
14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 228 | | olcott |
14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 169 | | joes |
14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 168 | | olcott |
15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 166 | | joes |
15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 2 | | olcott |
15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 163 | | Mikko |
15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 162 | | olcott |
15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
16 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 160 | | Mikko |
16 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 159 | | olcott |
17 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 158 | | Mikko |
17 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 157 | | olcott |
18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 156 | | Mikko |
18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 155 | | olcott |
18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 154 | | Mikko |
18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 153 | | olcott |
18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 152 | | Mikko |
18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 151 | | olcott |
19 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 150 | | Mikko |
19 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 149 | | olcott |
20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 148 | | Mikko |
20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 147 | | olcott |
20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 146 | | Mikko |
20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 145 | | olcott |
20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 5 | | joes |
20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 4 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 3 | | Fred. Zwarts |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 2 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 56 | | Richard Damon |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 55 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 54 | | Richard Damon |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 53 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 52 | | Richard Damon |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 51 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 50 | | Richard Damon |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 47 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 46 | | Richard Damon |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 45 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 44 | | Richard Damon |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 43 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 42 | | Richard Damon |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 41 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 40 | | Richard Damon |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 39 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 38 | | Richard Damon |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 37 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 36 | | Richard Damon |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 35 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 34 | | Richard Damon |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 2 | | olcott |
21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 83 | | Mikko |
15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 58 | | Richard Damon |
14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 2 | | joes |
15 Jun 24 | H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies | 12 | | olcott |
15 Jun 24 | H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES | 18 | | olcott |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 5 | | joes |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 1 | | joes |
13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 6 | | joes |
12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 51 | | Richard Damon |
12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 1 | | Fred. Zwarts |