Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/6/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:NO, it is the truth.On 8/6/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:That is a very ignorant thing to say.On 8/6/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 8/6/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:>On 8/6/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 8/6/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:>On 8/6/2024 8:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 8/6/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:>On 8/6/2024 12:02 PM, joes wrote:>Am Tue, 06 Aug 2024 09:43:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:>Understanding that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "return" instruction is a mandatory prerequisite to further
discussion.There is nothing to discuss after agreeing with your conclusion.>
>Everyone remains convinced that HHH must report on the behavior of the
computation that itself is contained within and not the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.The construction is not recursive if the description does not describe>
the surrounding computation. And that behaviour cannot depend on the
decider, as they should all give the same answer.
>
That is far too vague.
>
DDD correctly emulated by HHH according to the semantics
of the x86 programming language specifies a single exact
sequence of state changes. None of these state changes
ends up at the x86 machine language address of the "ret"
instruction of DDD.
>
Which would be meaningful if HHH actual did a correct emulation of the
HHH does emulate the exact sequence that the machine code
of DDD specifies. This has been conclusively proven by
the execution traces that the two instances of HHH provide.
Nope, because it didn't emulate the call instruction properly.
>
It is proved that it does emulate the call instruction
properly by the correct execution trace of the second
DDD derived by the second HHH.
Nope, just proves you don't know what you are talking about.
>
Because your rebuttals have always been pure bluster
No, YOUR rebuttal have been pure bluster that have avoided answering my challenges, thus effectively ADMITTING that you arte just a liar.
>you have only used double-talk and misdirection to dodge>
pointing out any mistake in the following:
How about the trace that HHH generates shouldn't start with the code of main, since that isn't what HHH starts simulating, thus your claims about the trace generate by HHH can not be supported by something elses trace.
>
Nope, they show you wrong.Second, the CORRECT emulation of a "call" instruciton should show the instruction of the routine called.The extra 200 pages prove to be too confusing. The
>
fact that after DDD calls HHH we do get the correct
execution trace that would be derived from this call
proves that the second HHH was called.
I will highlight all of the code so that youSince the trace isn't the right trace, that doesn't mean anything.
can see the each instruction both HHH are shown
and both DDD are shown. I will use four different
colors.
It really have already been 100% totally proven inNope, where is the fact that that either HHH has the power to stop any of this from happening by aborting there simulation of it?
that after DDD calls HHH we to get the correct
execution trace of DDD emulated by this second HHH
Thus, a "Call 000015d2" *MUST* be followed by the instruction AT 000015d2, and not "Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation">>>> _DDD()
>
Since you have just been repeating this smae ERROR over and over, you are just proving that you just don't care about the truth, but are just repeating your same LIES over and over and over, securing your place in Gehenna.
>This execution trace proves that the second HHH did[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
_main()
[00002192] 55 push ebp
[00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a2] 50 push eax
[000021a3] 6843070000 push 00000743
[000021a8] e8b5e5ffff call 00000762
[000021ad] 83c408 add esp,+08
[000021b0] 33c0 xor eax,eax
[000021b2] 5d pop ebp
[000021b3] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0034) [000021b3]
>
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
[00002192][00103820][00000000] 55 push ebp
[00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:1038c4
>
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
[00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:14e2ec
emulate the second DDD correctly:
And is incorrect in its conclusion because is shows that the HHH that it is emulating WILL doe the same thing, and thus the inut will be HALTING[00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
So? You don't understand how little that means.Not at all he sponsored me on https://arxiv.org/>>
[0000219f][00103820][00000000] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a2][0010381c][00000000] 50 push eax
[000021a3][00103818][00000743] 6843070000 push 00000743
[000021a8][00103818][00000743] e8b5e5ffff call 00000762
Input_Halts = 0
[000021ad][00103820][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
[000021b0][00103820][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
[000021b2][00103824][00000018] 5d pop ebp
[000021b3][00103828][00000000] c3 ret
Number of Instructions Executed(10069) == 150 Pages
>
*I had no idea that Mike was doing this same thing*
>
The former editor in chief of CASM did acknowledge
this to me. He said that was why he couldn't understand
what I was saying after many email exchanges.
>
My guess is he couldn't believe someone could be so stupid.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.