On 5/21/22 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/21/2022 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/21/22 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/21/2022 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/22 9:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/21/2022 7:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 3:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 11:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 12:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 11:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 11:47 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2022 10:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/22 10:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an easily verified fact that the execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided by H(P,P) of the nested simulation of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input exactly matches the behavior of the correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reverse-engineered nested execution trace would be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is easy to verify that it does NOT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know that you are a liar so I challenge you to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide the execution trace that a pure single level
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested emulation of the input to H(P,P) would be. Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failure to provide this basis for your damned lies will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be considered direct admission that you know you are lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001352](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001353](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001355](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001358](01)  50              push eax      // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001359](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135c](01)  51              push ecx      // push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000135d](05)  e840feffff      call 000011a2 // call H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001362](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001365](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001367](02)  7402            jz 0000136b
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00001369](02)  ebfe            jmp 00001369
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136b](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000136c](01)  c3              ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I wopuld need to have the code for H to do that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since that is PART of P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would begin as:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      address   address   data      code       language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55         push ebp //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enter P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50         push eax //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51         push ecx //
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // call H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At this point I don't have the data,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The assumption is that H(P,P) correctly emulates its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe a bad assumption!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is stipulated that you must show what the execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>> of the input to H(P,P) would be if H only simulated its
>>>>>>>>>>> input. You must show this for one simulation and one nested
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation. Failure to do this will be construed as a direct
>>>>>>>>>>> admission that you know you are lying.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, give me a copy of H to trace,
>>>>>>>>> You are required to provide a trace under the assumption that
>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) only does a pure x86 emulation of its input for the
>>>>>>>>> first emulation and the first nested emulation. Are you too
>>>>>>>>> stupid to understand this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You obviously have an reading problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I said, for that I need the code of H, as that is what needs to
>>>>>>>> be traced.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is "given" that this code only performs a pure x86
>>>>>>> emulation of its input (unless you have no idea what an x86
>>>>>>> emulation is) there is no reason to see that the code derives a
>>>>>>> pure x86 emulation of its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The the trace of the emulation needs to show the actual steps of
>>>>>> emulationg the input, like I mentioned.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If I showed either the source-code of H or the execution trace of H
>>>>> people here would be so confused that I would never reach closure
>>>>> in 50 years. If they can't comprehend a 14 line execution trace
>>>>> then showing them much more than this would permanently scramble
>>>>> their brains.
>>>>
>>>> No, people wouldn't be confused,
>>>>
>>>
>>> That they don't understand that they don't need to see this
>>> conclusively proves that they have woefully inadequate technical
>>> skills to evaluate my work.
>>>
>>
>> Just shows you are lying.
>>
> I coined the term "ignorance squared" decades ago to account for the
> fact that people cannot possibly be directly aware of their own ignorance.

You seem tobe a good example of that.

>
> To be directly aware of their own ignorance requires them to contrast
> their ignorance with the knowledge that they are missing.
>
> Since they don't have this missing knowledge they cannot become directly
> aware that they are missing any knowledge. Their own ignorance is simply
> perceived as disagreement.

So, what actual FACT do you think I am missing?

I have stated specific rules that your 'claims' fail to follow. All you
have done is hurled insults. Who doesn't actually know what they are
talking about?

YOU are the one who has admitted to not having studied the theory, so
don't have a real basis to judge what they do not know.

You are the perfect example of Dunning-Kruger Effect. (Maybe you didn't
realize that the effect has an actual name because it has long been known).

One of your problems is that not having studied the history of the
field, you repeat the exact same errors that have been previously committed.

I will say you are somewhat inventive in how you try to express these
errors, but fundamentally many of them are ancient.