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*
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ_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]
It is impossible for D correctly simulated by H to ever reach
its simulated final state at its own machine address [00000d1d].
People disagree with this by changing the subject to D not simulated
by H as all. They have been indoctrinated into believing that this
strawman deception is correct yet
cannot possibly show the detailed steps of how D correctly simulated
by H can possibly reach its own simulated machine address of [00000d1d].
*Here are the steps that prove that I am correct*
(1) Executed H simulates the first seven instructions of D.
(2) Simulated D calls simulated H(D,D) to simulate itself again.
(3) Simulated H simulates the first seven instructions of simulated
simulated D.
(4) Simulated simulated D simulated by simulated H calls
simulated simulated H(D,D) to simulate itself again.
*HERE ARE ALL OF CONCRETE DETAILS OF THAT*
*Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:cfc*
[00000cfc][00211839][0021183d](01) 55 push ebp ; begin D
[00000cfd][00211839][0021183d](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000cff][00211839][0021183d](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d02][00211835][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D
[00000d03][00211835][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d06][00211831][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D
[00000d07][0021182d][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H
*This call to H is simulated by directly executed H*
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== =============== =============
[00000cfc][0025c261][0025c265](01) 55 push ebp ; begin D
[00000cfd][0025c261][0025c265](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000cff][0025c261][0025c265](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d02][0025c25d][00000cfc](01) 50 push eax ; push D
[00000d03][0025c25d][00000cfc](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d06][0025c259][00000cfc](01) 51 push ecx ; push D
[00000d07][0025c255][00000d0c](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H
*This call to H would be simulated by simulated executed H*
*Infinitely Nested Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped*
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
| Date | Sujet | # | | Auteur |
| 10 Jun 24 |  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 373 | | olcott |
| 10 Jun 24 |  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 10 | | joes |
| 10 Jun 24 |  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 4 | | Mikko |
| 10 Jun 24 |  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 3 | | olcott |
| 11 Jun 24 |  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 2 | | Mikko |
| 11 Jun 24 |  Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 1 | | olcott |
| 10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 5 | | olcott |
| 10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 4 | | joes |
| 10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 3 | | olcott |
| 10 Jun 24 | Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- | 2 | | joes |
| 10 Jun 24 | Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- | 1 | | olcott |
| 10 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- | 362 | | Richard Damon |
| 11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error | 361 | | olcott |
| 11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error | 360 | | Richard Damon |
| 11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error | 359 | | olcott |
| 11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error | 358 | | Richard Damon |
| 11 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 357 | | olcott |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 355 | | Richard Damon |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 354 | | olcott |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 302 | | Python |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 301 | | olcott |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 300 | | Richard Damon |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 299 | | olcott |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 298 | | Richard Damon |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 297 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 296 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 295 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 288 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 287 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 285 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 284 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 283 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 282 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 281 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 280 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 274 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 273 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 272 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 271 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 270 | | Richard Damon |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 269 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 1 | | joes |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 267 | | Richard Damon |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 236 | | olcott |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 235 | | Richard Damon |
| 14 Jun 24 | H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 234 | | olcott |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 231 | | Richard Damon |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 230 | | olcott |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 229 | | Richard Damon |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 228 | | olcott |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 169 | | joes |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 168 | | olcott |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 166 | | joes |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 2 | | olcott |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 163 | | Mikko |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 162 | | olcott |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
| 16 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 160 | | Mikko |
| 16 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 159 | | olcott |
| 17 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 158 | | Mikko |
| 17 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 157 | | olcott |
| 18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 156 | | Mikko |
| 18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 155 | | olcott |
| 18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 154 | | Mikko |
| 18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 153 | | olcott |
| 18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 152 | | Mikko |
| 18 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 151 | | olcott |
| 19 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 150 | | Mikko |
| 19 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 149 | | olcott |
| 20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 148 | | Mikko |
| 20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 147 | | olcott |
| 20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 146 | | Mikko |
| 20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 145 | | olcott |
| 20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 5 | | joes |
| 20 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 4 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 3 | | Fred. Zwarts |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 2 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 56 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 55 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 54 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 53 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 52 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 51 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 50 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 47 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 46 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 45 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 44 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 43 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 42 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 41 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 40 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 39 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 38 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 37 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 36 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 35 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 34 | | Richard Damon |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply | 2 | | olcott |
| 21 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 83 | | Mikko |
| 15 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 58 | | Richard Damon |
| 14 Jun 24 | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) | 2 | | joes |
| 15 Jun 24 | H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies | 12 | | olcott |
| 15 Jun 24 | H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES | 18 | | olcott |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 5 | | joes |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 1 | | joes |
| 13 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules | 6 | | joes |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 51 | | Richard Damon |
| 12 Jun 24 | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten | 1 | | Fred. Zwarts |