XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, sci.math.symbolic
On 8/7/2021 3:56 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Malicious cross posting removed. ]
In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/7/2021 12:41 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Yet more malicious cross posting removed. ]
In comp.theory olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 8/7/2021 11:24 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[ Further malicious cross posting removed. ]
[ .... ]
It's nothing to do with my competence with x86. It's to do with your >>>>> smoke and mirrors.
You're hiding what, if anything, you have, thus preventing an honest >>>>> dialogue. If you were interested in honesty, you would make it as
easy as possible to discuss your results, if any. Instead you force >>>>> anybody still interested to wade through reams of x86 code, which is >>>>> woefully incomplete.
Me, I'm not really interested. I've verified a proof of the HP
theorem and that's that. But I'd really like to see some honesty from >>>>> your side. If you were to produce the source code of H, I might even >>>>> look at it. Maybe.
I'm not actually that convinced you've even got source code for H. It >>>>> might well just be a fantasy. It still doesn't matter much. The
theorem is proved, so it would just be a matter of exposing your
mistakes.
If you have no correct rebuttal for (1)(2)(3) then they stand without
rebuttal.
Garbage. They do not stand until they are proved, something beyond your >>> understanding and capability.
No response?
Irrefutable is another word for correct.
It is not. They are different words with different meanings. Hint: in English there are few pairs of words indeed with identical meanings.
You are merely one of many that dismisses my proof out-of-hand without >>>> sufficient review simply because you really really believe that I must >>>> be incorrect.
There's no "belief" about it. It's established mathematical proof,
something you fail to understand. You're asserting that 2 + 2 = 5. Why >>> should I waste time on that?
If you truly, honestly wanted review, you would post your source code.
No answer? You don't actually have source code for an H, do you?
The following code proves beyond all possible doubt ....
_P()
[00000d02](01) 55 push ebp
[00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push P
[00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push P
[00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H that emulates P [00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b
[00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19
[00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000d1c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
Now come nothing but lies from you. You don't honestly think that dumped object code from ~4 lines of C source can prove _anything_ "beyond all possible doubt", surely? You are just lying.
I am not the one that keeps deleting the code that proves that I am right.
If you think that I am wrong then show how a pure simulation of the
above code can possibly reach its final state of [00000d1c] when we know
that and can verify that H acts as a pure simulator of P(P).
.... that the pure simulation of P on its input P by H cannot possibly
reach its final state of [00000d1c] whether or not H aborts this
simulation. It seems that you are either in psychological denial or
worse: (the opposite of an honest dialogue).
Until we know exactly what H does, and how, we can't have any honest
dialogue about it.
We can see that H acts as a pure simulator of the above code from this execution trace of the simulation of P by H:
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02 ...[00000d02][002118f1][002118f5] 55 push ebp ...[00000d03][002118f1][002118f5] 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00000d05][002118f1][002118f5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000d08][002118ed][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P ...[00000d09][002118ed][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[00000d0c][002118e9][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P ...[00000d0d][002118e5][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H ...[00000d02][0025c319][0025c31d] 55 push ebp ...[00000d03][0025c319][0025c31d] 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00000d05][0025c319][0025c31d] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000d08][0025c315][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P ...[00000d09][0025c315][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[00000d0c][0025c311][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P ...[00000d0d][0025c30d][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
[ .... ]
Perhaps you never heard the term: "irrefutable" before? It essentially
means the same thing as "correct".
Wrong. It does not.
You have no interest in honest dialogue.
You don't. Have you actually written working source code for H?
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)