Re: Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof --- H emulating H emulating D

On 9/16/24 11:58 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/16/2024 8:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 16.sep.2024 om 14:09 schreef olcott:

On 9/16/2024 6:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.sep.2024 om 16:23 schreef olcott:

>
Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof
D(D) correctly reports its own halt status
>
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
>

>

We can see that the first seven instructions of D emulated by H precisely match the first seven instructions of the x86 source-code of D. This conclusively proves that these instructions were emulated correctly.

>
Yes H makes a good start, but fails to complete the simulation, because of a bug in the code to recognise an infinite 'recursion'.
>

Then if you are not a damned liar you can see this
next part that you dishonestly erased.
>
D()
[0000218e] 55             push ebp         ; begin D
[0000218f] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002191] 8b4508         mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00002194] 50             push eax         ; push param
[00002195] 8b4d08         mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00002198] 51             push ecx         ; push param
[00002199] e8a0f2ffff     call 0000143e    ; call H
>
After D calls H(D,  D) we can see that H correctly emulates itself emulating D because again we see that the first seven instructions of D emulated by the emulated H precisely match the first seven instructions of the x86 source-code of D. This conclusively proves that these instructions were emulated correctly.
>

Yes, nobody denies that H made a good start, but it failed with the seventh instruction, where it did not correctly simulate the call instruction, which should be followed by the simulation of instructions within H.

 Examining emulations of emulations is very confusing
in the 260 page execution trace. Here it is:
 first line of H [0000143e]
page  38 executed H
page  48 emulated H
page 249 emulated emulated H
 first line of D [0000218e]
page  38 executed D
page  41 emulated D
page 132 emulated emulated D
 We can tell that a line is emulated when it is
preceded by: "call 000007be" call _DebugStep()
 https://www.liarparadox.org/D(D)_Sipser_Full.pdf
 page 38 executed D invokes executed H
[000021be][00103868][00000000] 55 push ebp
[000021bf][00103868][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000021c1][00103864][0000218e] 688e210000 push 0000218e
[000021c6][00103860][000021cb] e8c3ffffff call 0000218e
[0000218e][0010385c][00103868] 55 push ebp
[0000218f][0010385c][00103868] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00002191][0010385c][00103868] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00002194][00103858][0000218e] 50 push eax
[00002195][00103858][0000218e] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00002198][00103854][0000218e] 51 push ecx
[00002199][00103850][0000219e] e8a0f2ffff call 0000143e
 page 40-41 executed H is calling the emulator to emulate D
[00001208][001037dc][00103894] e8b1f5ffff call 000007be
[0000218e][00113900][00113904] 55 push ebp
 page 48 executed H is calling the emulator to emulate H
[00001208][001037dc][00103894] e8b1f5ffff call 000007be
[00002199][001138f4][0000219e] e8a0f2ffff call 0000143e
 page 132 emulated H is calling the emulator to emulate D
[00001208][001037dc][00103894] e8b1f5ffff call 000007be
[00001208][00113880][0014e2bc] e8b1f5ffff call 000007be
[0000218e][0015e328][0015e32c] 55 push ebp
 page 249 emulated H is calling the emulator to emulate H
[00001208][001037dc][00103894] e8b1f5ffff call 000007be
[00001208][00113880][0014e2bc] e8b1f5ffff call 000007be
[00002199][0015e31c][0000219e] e8a0f2ffff call 0000143e
 

So?
That just shows you have worked out a way to LIE about what happens.
The results of a emulated call to debug step are NOT correctly part of the emulation of D. and your including them just proves you just don't understand what you are talking about, but are just a pathological liar that just doesn't understand what TRUTH is, so you just ignore itl
Sorry, you are just proving that you are just logically incompetent, as you keep repeating your errors after they have been pointed out,
That means either you are incapable of learning due to mental defect, or are just a pathological liar.
Either way, everyone with any smarts now knows to ignore EVERYTHING you say, as there is likely no real logic behind it.
Sorry, those are the facts.