Sujet : Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 15. Jun 2024, 20:55:28
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v4ko32$3jfm0$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>
It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes
the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to
H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by
the semantics of the x86 programming language that reaches the
behavior of the directly executed D(D)
>
>
Why? I don't claim it can.
>
When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input
to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and
and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you
have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog.
>
No, by asking a Red Herring question,
>
*In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE*
No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why?
In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not
being asked about the behavior of D(D).
Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption
that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified?
You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that
question will increase your understanding or you already know
that the answer to that question proves that I am correct.
No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has NOTHING to do with the problem,
It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete
instance of the problem.
you only think it does, and you want me top prove your false point.
>
*YOU* are showing that YOU are not interested in Honest Dialog, because you have been backed in to a corner.
>
You are the one that is backed into a corner here and no amount
of pure bluster will get you out. Failing to provide the requested
steps *is construed as your admission that I am correct*
>
What corner am I backed into?
The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is that it answers about the behavior of the directly executed input,
I prove a counter-example to this that no one ever noticed
before because consistently everyone rejected the notion of
a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without any review
what-so-ever.
It IS impossible for the input to H(D,D) to specify
the behavior of D(D) and simply baselessly assuming
otherwise GETS NO WHERE.
not about the partial simulation of it done by the decider.
We can count to 5 and through mathematical induction
we know that we can can beyond 5.
YOU are the one stuck trying to claim that a wrong answer is right, and have been stuck there for years.
No one, but you, cases about what the simulation by H does, as it stops before it gets the answer. We have the correct answer, and it isn't the one H gives.
If it actually stops before it gets an answer then you could
show some finite number of steps of D correctly simulated by
H that reach machine address [00000d1d].
The ONLY reason that you do not do this is that you know
that I am correct.
Fascism can only take over the planet while we continue to
have no objective way to divide dangerous lies from truth.
*That kind of thing has been my motivation all along*
_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]
-- 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 |