Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- verified fact for 3 years

On 6/10/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/10/2024 3:35 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
>
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/9/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/9/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

>
[ .... ]
>

THIS IS AN OFFICIAL CEASE AND DESIST NOTIFICATION.
STOP CALLING ME A LIAR.

>

Then stop Lying!

>

*I never have lied and you know it*

>
You have frequently lied.  All these times when you have called your
notions "verified facts",

 They have been verified facts for three years and everyone
simply ignored the verification.
 *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
 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).

Which shows that H can not have actually correctly fully simulated the input, and thus its simulation doesn't tell us about halting.

 _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*

Nope. In fact, if H ignores that instruction, it BY YOUR DEFINITION hasn't done a correct simulation.

 H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.
 

No it isn't. A correct simulation thorugh the call H must show the simulation of the function H.
THis has not been shown, so you can't have a "verifited" fact about it, just further proving that "verified by Olcott" can't be taken as verified at all.