Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply

On 6/21/24 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 9:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/21/24 9:01 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/21/2024 2:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jun.2024 om 16:12 schreef olcott:

On 6/20/2024 3:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 20.jun.2024 om 02:00 schreef olcott:

This shows all of the steps of HH0 simulating DDD
calling a simulated HH0 simulating DDD
>
https://liarparadox.org/HH0_(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
*Some of the key instructions are color coded*
GREEN---DebugStep Address
RED-----HH Address
YELLOW--All of the DDD instructions
CYAN----Return from DebugStep to Decide_Halting_HH
>
_DDD()
[000020a2] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[000020a3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD
[000020aa] e8f3f9ffff call 00001aa2 ; call H0
[000020af] 83c404     add esp,+04   ; housekeeping
[000020b2] 5d         pop ebp       ; housekeeping
[000020b3] c3         ret           ; never gets here
Size in bytes:(0018) [000020b3]
>
Exactly which step of DDD emulated by H0 was emulated
incorrectly such that this emulation would be complete?
AKA DDD emulated by H0 reaches machine address [000020b3]
>
>
>

>
If the simulation of a program with a loop of 5 iterations is aborted after 3 iterations, all instructions are correctly simulated. Nevertheless, it is an incorrect simulation, because it should simulate up to the final state of the program.
>

>
It would be helpful if you answer the actual question being asked
right here and thus not answer some other question that was asked
somewhere else.

>
If you do not understand that I answered the question why the simulation is incorrect, it is hopeless. The question which instruction is incorrect is not the right question.
>

>
If you say that something is incorrect and can't be specific
then your rebuttal is pure bluster with no actual basis.
>
You need to show every single freaking step of exactly
DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own
machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT!
>

>
Which proves your duplicity, since no one is claiming that.
>

 If you claim that I have made a mistake and cannot point
to the exact details of this mistake then everyone will
know that you are lying about there being any actual mistake.

Sure
First, NO ONE has said that *H* (or what every you are calling your decider today) can correct simulate the input to a final state.
The claim is that an ACTUAL CORRECT SIMULATOR can
Also, you have the error that you "input" is incomplete, and doesn't actually represent the PROGRAM that your decider is supposed to decide on. and thus strictly, you question is just invalid, and you are proved to be lying thatit is based on the proofs of Linz or Sipser.
Also, you LIE when you say the question is actualy about the correct simulation BY H, when the actual definition is the behavior of the directly executed machine described by the input (which needs to be corrected to actually correctly represent a machine).
These have all been mentioned before, so you are just lying that you hven't been told about them, you are just being the monkey hiding your eyes and ears so you don't see/hear the errors being pointed out.

  You need to show every single freaking step of exactly
DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own
machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT!

Why? NO ONE has claimed it can.
So, you are just fighting strawman, because you arguments can't handle the actual problems.
'

 _DDD()
[00002093] 55               push ebp
[00002094] 8bec             mov ebp,esp
[00002096] 6893200000       push 00002093 ; push DDD
[0000209b] e853f4ffff       call 000014f3 ; call HH0
[000020a0] 83c404           add esp,+04
[000020a3] 5d               pop ebp
[000020a4] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]
 Maybe I need to make that my boilerplate reply to
everything that you ever say about anything until
you admit that you are wrong.
 

And just PROVE that you don't understand what you are talking about,
And, it seems this *IS* your "boiler plate" which just gives your lies.