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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 13. Jun 2024, 01:45:27
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v4dbun$3qbnc$4@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:
*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*
>
So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a verified fact is just a LIE.
>
>
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).
>
So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D correctly simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent statement for the behavior of the direct execution of the input as required by the Halting Problem, so you admit you have been LYING every time you imply that it is.
>
>
_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*
>
No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly.
>
>
*Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that*
*cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior*
*of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction*
*and simulates H simulating H*
>
>
No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it,
>
*This H does do it*
D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D
as the above line of code requires.
>
The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code
thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly
simulated by H.
>
>
WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return statement?
>
>
That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year.
>
*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*
>
WRONG.
>
*YOU* have verified that the directly executed D(D) will reach its return statement.
>
It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider
what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the
business of H.
>
IMPOSSIBLE.
>
Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about.
>
The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means.
>
There are no finite string transformation rules
from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D).
>
>
As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, that is a UTM.
>
>
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>
Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated
by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have
is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.
>
Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM.
>
 H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input
transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior
that it specifies using finite string transformation rules.
Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the machine represented by its input.
That behavior is FULLY defined by the input, just not necessarily something that H can determine in a finite number of steps.
Remember, Comptation Theory is about the question of *IF* such a requirement *IS* computable or not. So, not being computable, and thus there not being a method to get the answer in a finite number of steps is a perfectly acceptable results.

 *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that*
*H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that*
*H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that*
Rigth, to be CORRECT, it must answer per the criteria DEFINED for it.
If it can't actually compute that, then its only remaining option is to guess an possibly be wrong, which is what yours does.

 _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]
 

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