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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: 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, 18:10:19
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v4a0dr$157ic$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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; Genius
hits 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 ---373olcott
10 Jun 24 +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---10joes
10 Jun 24 i+* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---4Mikko
10 Jun 24 ii`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---3olcott
11 Jun 24 ii `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---2Mikko
11 Jun 24 ii  `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1olcott
10 Jun 24 i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---5olcott
10 Jun 24 i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---4joes
10 Jun 24 i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---3olcott
10 Jun 24 i   `* Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS ---2joes
10 Jun 24 i    `- Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS ---1olcott
10 Jun 24 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---362Richard Damon
11 Jun 24  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error361olcott
11 Jun 24   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error360Richard Damon
11 Jun 24    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error359olcott
11 Jun 24     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error358Richard Damon
11 Jun 24      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten357olcott
12 Jun 24       +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten355Richard Damon
12 Jun 24       i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten354olcott
12 Jun 24       i +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten302Python
12 Jun 24       i i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten301olcott
12 Jun 24       i i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten300Richard Damon
12 Jun 24       i i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten299olcott
12 Jun 24       i i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten298Richard Damon
12 Jun 24       i i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules297olcott
13 Jun 24       i i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules296Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules295olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules288Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules287olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules285Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules284olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules283Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules282olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules281Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules280olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules274Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules273olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules272Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules271olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules270Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules269olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i     +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules1joes
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules267Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules236olcott
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules235Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i `* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)234olcott
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)231Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)230olcott
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)229Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)228olcott
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)169joes
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)168olcott
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i +- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)166joes
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i  +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)2olcott
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i  i`- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)163Mikko
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)162olcott
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i    +- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
16 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)160Mikko
16 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)159olcott
17 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)158Mikko
17 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i       `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)157olcott
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i        `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)156Mikko
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i         `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)155olcott
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i          `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)154Mikko
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i           `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)153olcott
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i            `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)152Mikko
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i             `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)151olcott
19 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i              `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)150Mikko
19 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i               `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)149olcott
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)148Mikko
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                 `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)147olcott
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)146Mikko
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)145olcott
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)5joes
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)4olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)3Fred. Zwarts
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)2olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i   `- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)56Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)55olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)54Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply53olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply52Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply51olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply50Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply47olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply46Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply45olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply44Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply43olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply42Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply41olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply40Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i       `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply39olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i        `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply38Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i         `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply37olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i          `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply36Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i           `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply35olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i            `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply34Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply2olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)83Mikko
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)58Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)2joes
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      +* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies12olcott
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      `* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES18olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules5joes
13 Jun 24       i i       i `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules1joes
13 Jun 24       i i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules6joes
12 Jun 24       i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten51Richard Damon
12 Jun 24       `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Fred. Zwarts

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal