Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

But you'll notice Perl has a goto. -- Larry Wall in <199710211624.JAA17833@wall.org>


tech / sci.logic / Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---

SubjectAuthor
* Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problemolcott
+* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problemRichard Damon
|`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | | `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  |+* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  || +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  || |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  || | +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  || | |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  || | | `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  || | |  `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  || | |   +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  || | |   |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  || | |   | `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  || | |   `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]immibis
| | | |  || | |    `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  || | |     +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]immibis
| | | |  || | |     |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  || | |     | +- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]immibis
| | | |  || | |     | `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  || | |     `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  || | `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]immibis
| | | |  || `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||  `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  ||   +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  ||   | `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]André G. Isaak
| | | |  ||   |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  ||   | `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |  `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  ||   |   `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |    `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  ||   |     `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |      `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  ||   |       `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |        `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]olcott
| | | |  ||   |         `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |          `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]olcott
| | | |  ||   |           +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]olcott
| | | |  ||   |           | `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |  `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |   +- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]immibis
| | | |  ||   |           |   `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |    `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |     `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |      `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |       +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |       |+* ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |       ||+* Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |       |||`* Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---(too late)olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |       ||| `* Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---(too late)Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |       |||  `* Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---(too late)olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |       |||   `* Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---(too late)Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |       |||    +- Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---(too late)olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |       |||    `- Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt--- But Olcott doesn't understand Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |       ||`* Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---immibis
| | | |  ||   |           |       || `* Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |       ||  `- Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt--- But Olcott doesn't understand Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |       |+* ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |       ||`* Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt--- But only for the HH that neverRichard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |       || `* Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt--- [7]olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |       ||  `- Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt--- [7]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |       |`* ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |       | `* Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |       |  `* Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |       |   +- Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           |       |   `- Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---immibis
| | | |  ||   |           |       `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]immibis
| | | |  ||   |           |        `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]olcott
| | | |  ||   |           |         `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |           `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]immibis
| | | |  ||   |            `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]olcott
| | | |  ||   |             `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]immibis
| | | |  ||   |              `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]olcott
| | | |  ||   |               +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]immibis
| | | |  ||   |               |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]olcott
| | | |  ||   |               | +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]immibis
| | | |  ||   |               | |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]olcott
| | | |  ||   |               | | +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]immibis
| | | |  ||   |               | | |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]olcott
| | | |  ||   |               | | | +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]immibis
| | | |  ||   |               | | | |`- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |               | | | `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |               | | `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |               | `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   |               `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[6]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||   `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]immibis
| | | |  ||    `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  ||     +* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]immibis
| | | |  ||     |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]olcott
| | | |  ||     | `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  ||     `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Richard Damon
| | | |  |+* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]immibis
| | | |  |`* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Alan Mackenzie
| | | |  `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Alan Mackenzie
| | | `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]immibis
| | `- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]Mikko
| `* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problem[3]immibis
+* Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problemimmibis
`- Re: Correcting the definition of the terms of the halting problemMikko

Pages:12345678910
Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---

<uok3do$cm2b$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=7169&group=sci.logic#7169

  copy link   Newsgroups: sci.logic comp.theory
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: new...@immibis.com (immibis)
Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory
Subject: Re: ---Richard admits simulated DD cannot halt---
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 22:47:36 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 289
Message-ID: <uok3do$cm2b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uoduuj$35mck$1@dont-email.me> <uoed56$3qn49$3@i2pn2.org>
<uoeffe$38lrd$1@dont-email.me> <uoept8$3rkmt$4@i2pn2.org>
<uoeqld$3ajvd$1@dont-email.me> <uoer82$3rkmt$9@i2pn2.org>
<uoet3v$3arla$4@dont-email.me> <uof746$3rkmu$11@i2pn2.org>
<uof7fr$3cea5$2@dont-email.me> <uof9bi$3clog$1@dont-email.me>
<uof9uc$3cr46$1@dont-email.me> <uofboc$3rkmu$20@i2pn2.org>
<uofcnm$3gvr8$1@dont-email.me> <uofdpb$3rkmu$21@i2pn2.org>
<uofekc$3h80o$1@dont-email.me> <uofgt6$3rkmt$22@i2pn2.org>
<uofi7o$3hm1i$1@dont-email.me> <uogdtg$3trm8$1@i2pn2.org>
<uognsk$3nggk$1@dont-email.me> <uoh0fq$3trm8$8@i2pn2.org>
<uoh0uu$3p0hr$1@dont-email.me> <uoh19m$3trm8$17@i2pn2.org>
<uoh2va$3p0hr$11@dont-email.me> <uohadb$3trm8$19@i2pn2.org>
<uohbha$3qo5v$2@dont-email.me> <uohpuj$3trm8$31@i2pn2.org>
<uohr86$3t2i9$1@dont-email.me> <uohrnh$3trm8$34@i2pn2.org>
<uohs2q$3t2i9$2@dont-email.me> <uoht8p$3trm8$35@i2pn2.org>
<uojuhe$bps4$2@dont-email.me> <uojv7d$24b2$2@i2pn2.org>
<uojvdi$c1vc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 21:47:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e47cba30f3c4b8d51651db87d54658c0";
logging-data="415819"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+i61b2MmiTaBjNeLBueWHc"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Aryng+8E9Klv5v52vLo1mcP1rKI=
In-Reply-To: <uojvdi$c1vc$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: immibis - Sun, 21 Jan 2024 21:47 UTC

On 1/21/24 21:39, olcott wrote:
> On 1/21/2024 2:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/21/24 3:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/20/2024 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/20/24 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 1/20/2024 7:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/20/24 8:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/20/24 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 2:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/24 1:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/24 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 11:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/24 10:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/2024 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/24 9:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/19/2024 7:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-01-19 18:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The full state of D was repeated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only thing that changed was the stack address.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The contents of the stack and the stack address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are *part* of the state of the machine. If they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change, you are not repeating the same state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> André
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything is identical across recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulations besides
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the stack address. The stack address is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant to whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not DD halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, and part of the problem is you stopped
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at the actual simulaiton of the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulator being simulated at the first call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be in a different state at the second call to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H then it was when it started, just like the outer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HH doing the simulation has built up the history
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means that, if we continued an actual correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of this exact input (and thus didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change HH, but gave the input to a proper UTM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator) we would see that the first simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HH would run one more level of simulation, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then abort its simulation, and then return to DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it would halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, your simulation just isn't showing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual "state" of the program (in fact, you arn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even showing the state of the program, since the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key state for this program is what is happening in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the HH that DD is calling)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "recursive" layer SHOULD be showing up as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction sequence of the simulator simulating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those instructions, and thus showing that state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being generated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That second layer never actually shows as a direct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation in the proper simulation of the input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> except maybe as interspresed comment of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated HH just simulated this instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are going to try to abstract out that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation, you need to do it properly, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that the simulation level IS part of state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The easily verified fact that DD simulated by HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own simulated final state conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that only hold *IF* HH correctly simulates the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, which means that HH can NEVER abort its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trace Stored at:113027
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001c42][00113013][00113017] 55          push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001c43][00113013][00113017] 8bec        mov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001c45][0011300f][00102fe3] 51          push ecx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001c46][0011300f][00102fe3] 8b4508      mov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eax,[ebp+08] ; DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001c49][0011300b][00001c42] 50          push
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eax ; DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001c4a][0011300b][00001c42] 8b4d08      mov
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecx,[ebp+08] ; DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001c4d][00113007][00001c42] 51          push
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecx ; DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001c4e][00113003][00001c53] e80ff7ffff  call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00001362 ; HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:14da47
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note. error in simulation here. Call to HH should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be showing the states of operation of HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me how the behavior of HH can possibly show that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD reaches its final state and I will provide a link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the 151 pages of the execution trace of HH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It can't in its simulation, but an actually correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of the input, which HH doesn't do, can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When I challenge you to show what the correct detailed*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *line-by-line machine address by machine address steps*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *SHOULD BE you consistently utterly fail because you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *don't know Jack about these things and are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bluffing*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. I'm not falling for your strawman and are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> panicing as badly as your buddy Trump.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump is a Hitler wanna bee.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep, and you are no better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You use the same lying techniques as he does, even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though you CLAIM to be fighting those techniques (that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes you the Hypocrite)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You failed try again*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I show 16 lines of machine code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *you must show ever detail of your corrected machine code*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This must include the machine address and the assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *OR YOU FAIL*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *OR YOU FAIL*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *OR YOU FAIL*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *OR YOU FAIL*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOPE!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU have failed, but are apparently so brain dead the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news can't get to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When I challenge you to show what the correct detailed*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *line-by-line machine address by machine address steps*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *SHOULD BE you consistently utterly fail because you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *don't know Jack about these things and are just bluffing*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why do YOU have the power to dictate how I argue?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell me what was wrong with what I said?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I gave you a complete 16 line execution trace with every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> detail 100% fully specified. You must show exactly which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this trace are wrong by correcting these exact details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, HH is undefined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, and HH that correctly simulates the input and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer just doesn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I need to see column (1) and column (5) exact and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete details*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cut-and-paste would also preserve column(4)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHy? Are you that stupid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I described exactly what needs to happen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If HH can't generate that (which it can't) then it is just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the error in HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The trace that you provide must correspond to the provided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly language/machine-code of DD at the bottom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You must believe in the existance of Russel's Teapot then,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the Barber that shave everyone who doesn't shave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU SAY THAT DD IS NOT CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY HH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I SAY PROVE IT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only acceptable proof must be a cut-and-paste of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace shown below with corrections to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace showing what the correct simulation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD by HH should be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You said "Nope" only because you already know that I am
>>>>>>>>>>> correct and want to continue to persist with bullshit
>>>>>>>>>>> and double-talk.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, why don't you answer my questions?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *I will not tolerate your persistent misdirection*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you can't copy the execution trace shown below
>>>>>>>>> and change it so that it is correct then you are
>>>>>>>>> admitting that it is correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are willing for an EDIT, and not an actual run
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The CORRECT SIMULATION of the input to HH(DD,DD)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, there can not be a correct simulation by HH
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More double-talk excuse for not showing exactly how this is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, what was wrong with my correct simulation trace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seem you are just admitting to using double-talk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BECAUSE IT IS NOT WRONG
>>>>>>> BECAUSE IT IS NOT WRONG
>>>>>>> BECAUSE IT IS NOT WRONG
>>>>>>> BECAUSE IT IS NOT WRONG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then why does it not agree with the direct execution, as REQURED
>>>>>> by the definiton of CORRECT SIMULATION?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> int Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
>>>>> {
>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion(N);
>>>>>    return 1;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the same as if infinite recursion was aborted on its second
>>>>> recursive call. This would provide the illusion that infinite
>>>>> recursion halts because the first call reaches its final state
>>>>> when the second call has been aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NOPE.
>>>>
>>>> HH STILL Can't do a correct simulation of that input, as a correct
>>>> simulation of that input takes an unbounded number of steps, so
>>>
>>> We know that D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state
>>> in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation.
>>>
>>> And it we did not need to simulate an infinite number of steps to know
>>> this.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But if H DOES correctly simulate D, then it DOESN'T ABORT.
>
> Yes of course the correct simulation of ten steps can't
> possibly be the correct simulation of ten steps.
>
> By this same reasoning no thing is itself.
>


Click here to read the complete article
Pages:12345678910
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor