XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

On 5/25/2022 8:14 AM, Ben wrote:

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

There then seems to be confusion between "nested simulation" and
"recursion" which isn't confined to PO. It's not clear exactly what is
going on because we don't have the source of H and questions about how
H distinguishes its own output from the output of the program it is
simulating haven't been answered.

What is your take on why PO is hiding H? Even the instructions of H are never shown in a trace. I ask because you are invariably generous in
your replies and I wonder what the generous interpretation of hiding
the one thing, H itself, that would answer all question immediately is.

As I have said many hundreds of times you can verify that I am correct
on the basis of what I provided.

_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]

In fact you actually only need much less than I provided to prove that I
am correct. The following can be correctly determined entirely on the
basis of the above x86 source-code for P.

It is an easily verified fact that the correct x86 emulation of the
input to H(P,P) would never reach the "ret" instruction of P in 0 to
infinity steps of the correct x86 emulation of P by H.

If you don't understand this then you won't understand something that is 1000-fold more complicated.

If I show you something that is 1000-fold more complicated now you will
have hundreds of other totally extraneous distractions that prevent you
from paying attention to my simple proof. You will confuse your own lack
of understanding of this complexity as dozens of more errors that must
be investigated before we can go back to the simple proof.

Because this simplest proof so obviously proves my point it seems
unreasonable for me to believe that others do not fully understand it.
Thus when they disagree with it I can't believe that they don't know
they are lying.

--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)