Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH

On 7/2/24 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 6:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 6:30 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 9:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 8:59 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 3:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:20 schreef olcott:

>
_DDD()
[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]
>

>
It cannot possibly return, because HHH aborts itself one cycle too early, showing that the emulation is incorrect. If that is over your head, try to learn how x86 instructions work.

>
_DDD()
[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]
>
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>
>

>
CAN'T BE.
>
A "Correct Emulation" is one that produces the same result as the program at the input.
>

>
Which can only possibly occur be disregarding the semantics
of the x86 language. Liars would do that ignoramuses would do
that. Everyone with the equivalent of a BSCS would know that
what I said is true.
>
>

>
Why do you say that? That is EXACTLY the definition of Correct Emulation.

>
>
WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.
WELL INDOCTRINATED FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT TRUTH.

>
And denying definitions is just lying.

>
It may seem that way when you don't bother to pay
attention that this definition is contradicted
by verified facts.

>
WHAT "Verified facts".
>
THe fact that DDD will halt since your HHH(DDD) retuns?
>

>
Indoctrination will cause this. The only cure is
correct reasoning by assuming that everything that
anyone ever told you about anything is possibly
false until conclusively proven otherwise.

>
Nope, but failure to follow the defined rules gets you kick out of the club.
>

>
If everyone always did this then Nazi propaganda
could not possibly have any chance of success.

>
But THEY Lied, and to could be shown so,
>
Just like your statements.
>

>

>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows
that when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop, Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations
so that itself can terminate normally.
>
SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT
SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT
SO THESE THREE INPUTS DO NOT FREAKING HALT
>

>
No, DDD does halt if HHH is a decider and HHH(DDD) returns.
>

>
That is the same nutty bullshit as Gödel's 1931 incompleteness
theorem. If there are no truth preserving operations in PA to
either G or ~G then G has no truthmaker in PA making G not a
truth-bearer in PA.

>
But there ARE a set of truth preserving operations in PA to show G, it is just that it takes an infinite number of them, so they don't constitute a proof.
>

>
Diagonalization conclusively proves otherwise and you know it.
Maybe the issue is that you are fundamentally a liar.
>
>

>
How?
>
I call your bluff, show your "cards" or FOLD.
>

>
That is not the way it works, you made a false claim and I
call your bluff on this false claim. You must provide a linked
source that agrees.

>
Of course that is the way it works.
>
You claim you can show something, and I ask you to show it.
>
Failure just means you admit to being a liar.
>
You need to show your proof, that you can form a "Diagonalization" proof that Godel's sentence is not true.
>
You need to either present the proof, admit you lied that you had one, or keep being reminded that you have been a liar and can't provide the proof you claimed you had.
>

>
 >>> But there ARE a set of truth preserving operations in PA to show G,
 >>> it is just that it takes an infinite number of them, so they don't
 >>> constitute a proof.
>
*This source says nothing like what you claim*
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom
>

>
Because they aren't using that terminology. That doesn't make the statement not true.
>
Note, they do talk about how the sentence, if it were false, could be shown false by just showing the number that satisfies it. So, one way to demonstrate that it IS true, is to just test EVERY number (all countable infinite number of them) and show that none make the counter example.
>
Most papers don't talk like that as we can't actually do it that way, but it is the simple explanation that should be able to sink into your head. If you want to show how that DOESN'T provide an infinite chain of steps to the truth of the statement, go ahead and try.
>
Your problem is you like to quote from things that you don't understand.

>
You have no source that validates this
On 7/1/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > But there ARE a set of truth preserving operations
 > in PA to show G, it is just that it takes an infinite number
 > of them, so they don't constitute a proof.
>
Every source says that G is proved outside of PA
and none says there are any infinite sequence of
steps in PA that derive G.
>

>
So, you just don't understand what the proof say then do you.
>
Since it is proven outside of PA to be true IN PA, then the chain must exist.

 No one else shares this correct understanding.
They all go by if it is true anywhere then it
is true everywhere.

No, either you read very poor works, or (more likely) you don't understand what you are reading.
Note, a lot of these proofs are about a system and a meta-system based on it, and the meta-system has been carefully constructed so that Truths in the meta-system, that don't refernce things just in the meta system, ARE true in the original system.

 

The chain I described DOES exist in PA, and unless you can show which step of that chain is incorrect, you are just a liar.
>

 You are asking me to show which the step of the proof
that squares are round is incorrect.

You could say that, and if the proof is wrong, it should be easy to find.
If you can't find an error in any of the steps, then you have no grounds to say it is incorrect.

 

So, Where is that Diagonalization proof, or are you just admitting you lied about having one.

 The key issue with all of these diagonalization
proofs is that they prove the self-contradictory
expressions cannot be proven never noticing that
the reason that cannot be proven is that they are
self-contradictory.

So, are you going to show the diagonalization proof you claimed to have?
Or, are you admiting that you just LIED with that claim.
And, it seems, you don't understand what the proof is about.

 This is like proving and X cannot do a Y without
knowing that the X is a dog and the Y is give birth
to kittens.
 

So you are agreeing with the statements that you are trying to prove wrong?
If the statement of the proof were REALLY as self-contradictory as you claim, you could actually SHOW the contradiction IN THE SYSTEM and not needing your unusual definitions (that often are themselves probelmatic).Your problem is you just don't understand what you are talking about, because you failed to actually spend effort to learn the basics. Sometimes it seems like your fear the basics, becuase the Truth might brainwash you (when actually it might help you break out of your own brainwashing).