Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 08:25:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <v597og$brmn$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me> <v56sk3$p1du$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v56tfv$3ql1v$2@dont-email.me> <v570n5$onl4$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v571lc$3rrgk$1@dont-email.me> <v57603$onl3$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v576cg$3soh6$2@dont-email.me> <v576nv$onl3$14@i2pn2.org>
 <v5775h$3soh6$5@dont-email.me> <v58r5s$9j01$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 15:25:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f19a017657c3e3f4d15756f16e311b4d";
	logging-data="388823"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19XPctzBoOALjH2jqX2d1Wv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1T0W65OQIxosAmmd6iK87s6Q3UA=
In-Reply-To: <v58r5s$9j01$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4111

On 6/23/2024 4:50 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-22 19:03:13 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/22/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/22/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/22/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HHH0(DDD);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input to HHH0(DDD) includes itself.
>>>>>>>> The input to HHH1(DDD) DOES NOT include itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is stipulated that correct emulation is defined by the
>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language and nothing else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And thus, your emulation traces show that your "Simulating Halt 
>>>>>>> Deciders" do not do a "Correct Simulation"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently your ADD preventing you from paying close attention
>>>>>> to ALL of my words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Function names adapted to correspond to my updated paper*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that
>>>>>> its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly return.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since your H0 has never demonstrated that is actually DOES the 
>>>>> correct simulation per your stipulation,
>>>>
>>>> Liar
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then where is it?
>>>
>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
>> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that
>> when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD)
>> cannot possibly return.
> 
> Semantics of the x86 programming language does not specifiy emulation
> or correctness of emulation.
> 

WRONG!

Otherwise we could say that for the decimal integers
2 + 3 = 17 and the semantics of arithmetic does not disagree.

The semantics of arithmetic agrees that for the decimal
integers 2 + 3 = 5.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer