Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard

On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
 
In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
 
[ .... ]
 

_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH

 

A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.

 
That's a bit of sudden and substantial change, isn't it?  Less than a
few
days ago, you were defining a correct simulation as "1 to N
instructions"
simulated (without ever specifying what you meant by N).  It seems that
the simulation of exactly one instruction would have met your criterion.
 
That now seems to have changed.
 

 
Because I am a relatively terrible writer I must constantly
improve my words on the basis of reviews.
 
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
 
_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
 
A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.
 
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
 

 
And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,

 
More dishonest deflection.
The point that I made and you try to deflect using the strawman
deception as a fake rebuttal is the I just proved that DD is correctly
simulated by HH and this is not the same behavior as the directly
executed DD(DD).
 

The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:
IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return.
ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return.
ELSE HP is undecidable

You keep solving POOH !!! and made lots of lies.

Surrender to my GUR, son.