Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 11. Jun 2024, 18:10:19
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v4a0dr$157ic$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/11/2024 4:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-10 15:33:23 +0000, olcott said:
 
On 6/10/2024 4:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-10 08:35:09 +0000, joes said:
>
Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
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).
>
_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*
I don't understand. Does D(D) ignore the call to H(D,D)?
>
H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.
>
What instructions does H use to output that trace and how those
>
I don't remember it has been two years.
I am looking into this again.
>
instructions are simulated when H is simulated?
>
>
They are simulated by
u32  DebugStep(Registers* master_state,
                Registers* slave_state, Decoded_Line_Of_Code* decoded)
                { return 0; }
>
This depends on libx86emu.
>
And why does H output any traces? That is not required by its
>
The traces are output so that people can directly see the
same infinite recursion behavior pattern that H sees and
thus know that H really is required to abort ts simulation.
 Looks like they don't serve that purpose. Perhaps you should
change something.
*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; Genius
hits 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 ---270olcott
10 Jun 24 +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---267Richard Damon
11 Jun 24 i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error266olcott
11 Jun 24 i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error265Richard Damon
11 Jun 24 i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error264olcott
11 Jun 24 i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error263Richard Damon
11 Jun 24 i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten262olcott
11 Jun 24 i     +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten260Richard Damon
12 Jun 24 i     i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten259olcott
12 Jun 24 i     i +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten223Python
12 Jun 24 i     i i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten222olcott
12 Jun 24 i     i i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten221Richard Damon
12 Jun 24 i     i i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten220olcott
12 Jun 24 i     i i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten219Richard Damon
12 Jun 24 i     i i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules218olcott
12 Jun 24 i     i i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules217Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules216olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules215Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules214olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i         `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules213Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i          `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules212olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i           `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules211Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i            `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules210olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i             `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules209Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i              `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules208olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i               `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules207Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i                `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules206olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules205Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules204olcott
13 Jun 24 i     i i                   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules203Richard Damon
13 Jun 24 i     i i                    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules202olcott
14 Jun 24 i     i i                     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules201Richard Damon
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules172olcott
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules171Richard Damon
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      i `* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)170olcott
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)169Richard Damon
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)168olcott
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)167Richard Damon
14 Jun 24 i     i i                      i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)166olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)58Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)57olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)56Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)6olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)5Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)4olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)3Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)2olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  i    `- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)49olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)48Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.47olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.39Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.38olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.37Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.36olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.35Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.34olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.33Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.32olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i       `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.31Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i        `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.30olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i         `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.29Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i          `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.28olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i           `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.27Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i            `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.26olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i             `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.25Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i              `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.24olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i               `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.23Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.22olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                 `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.21Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.20olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.19Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.18olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.17Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.16olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                       `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.15Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                        `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.14olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                         `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.13Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                          `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.12olcott
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                           `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.11Richard Damon
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                            `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.10olcott
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                             `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.9Richard Damon
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                              `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.8olcott
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                               `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.7Richard Damon
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                                `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.6olcott
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                                 `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.5Richard Damon
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                                  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.4olcott
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                                   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.3Richard Damon
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                                    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.2olcott
16 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     i                                     `- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.7joes
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken.6olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i       `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood)5Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i        +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood)2olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i        i`- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood)1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i        `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood)2olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i         `- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood)1Richard Damon
21 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply48olcott
21 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply47Richard Damon
21 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply44olcott
21 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply43Richard Damon
21 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply2olcott
22 Jun 24 i     i i                      i      `* DDD correctly emulated by H059olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      +* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies12olcott
15 Jun 24 i     i i                      `* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES16olcott
12 Jun 24 i     i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten35Richard Damon
12 Jun 24 i     `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Fred. Zwarts
10 Jun 24 +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---1olcott
11 Jun 24 `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal