Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure

On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/24/2024 7:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/24/24 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/24/2024 7:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/24/24 8:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/24/2024 6:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/24/24 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/24/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/24/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/24/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/23/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/23/2024 10:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/23/24 10:52 PM, olcott wrote:

>

>

>
for the next 10,000 messages if you really want to look
foolish that long.
>
>

>
Go ahead, stall your argument till you die.

>
There is no sense moving on to the next point until AFTER
you quit lying about this point.
>
_P()
[000020e2] 55               push ebp         ; housekeeping
[000020e3] 8bec             mov ebp,esp      ; housekeeping
[000020e5] 51               push ecx         ; housekeeping
[000020e6] 8b4508           mov eax,[ebp+08] ; parameter
[000020e9] 50               push eax         ; push parameter
[000020ea] 8b4d08           mov ecx,[ebp+08] ; parameter
[000020ed] 51               push ecx         ; push parameter
[000020ee] e82ff3ffff       call 00001422    ; call H(P,P)
[000020f3] 83c408           add esp,+08
[000020f6] 8945fc           mov [ebp-04],eax
[000020f9] 837dfc00         cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[000020fd] 7402             jz 00002101
[000020ff] ebfe             jmp 000020ff
[00002101] 8b45fc           mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002104] 8be5             mov esp,ebp
[00002106] 5d               pop ebp
[00002107] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0038) [00002107]
>
The call from P to H(P,P) when P is correctly emulated
by H cannot possibly return.
>
>

>
And my reply, like always, So?
>

>
Since you are such a damned liar I am not going to give
you two different points to endlessly switch back and forth
between. I am going to keep repeating this point to prove
what a damned liar you really are.
>

>
What is the LIE?
>
It seems YOU are the LIAR.
>

void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.
>
Once we have closure on this point we can move on to
the last point.
>

>
And what do we care about it?
>

>
*It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
*It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
*It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
*It is the only thing that you will get to talk to me about*
>

>
Good, so you are admitting you have nothing important to say.

>
I do correctly refute the halting problem proofs and
mandate mutual agreement on each step before I will
proceed to the next step.

>
Nope, you never have because you never use the definition of HALTING, but insist you get to LIE about what halting is.
>
You are just talking about your POOP.
>
You are just to stupid to understand what you are talking about.
>

>
*I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped*
*I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped*
*I caught you in your lies and there you remain trapped*
>
>

>
Where?

 *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*

You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what I say.

 You said that D correctly simulated by H must
have the behavior of the directly executed D(D).

Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation,
NOT ONE DIFFERENCE.
You seem to agree, as you can't point out the difference, you just say they must be different, even though you know it not to be true.

 D correctly simulated by H does not have the same behavior
as the directly executed D(D) because
 the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return when D
is correctly simulated by H.
 

Which isn't a behavior of the simulation but of H, that it stops before the input reaches that point, which a full simulation of it does.
You made your behavior SUBJECTIVE, which means it is as much the behavior of the observer as it is of the obeserved.
Since we have an objective version of the behavior of the simulation of the input, we can see what is the cause of the differences, and it isnt the input, it is the decider.
The SIMULATION has identical behavior to the sub-set of the direct execution it contains. The "conclusion" is the behavior of the decider.