Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 22:48:34 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5db62$10m6o$13@i2pn2.org>
References: <v598l4$c4if$1@dont-email.me> <v5a9bi$smd4$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5abdl$igvh$1@dont-email.me> <v5ac1p$smd4$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v5add4$isal$1@dont-email.me> <v5aebe$smd4$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v5aggb$jan3$1@dont-email.me> <v5ah6u$smd5$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v5ahkc$jgfe$1@dont-email.me> <v5ai8i$smd5$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v5aij8$nd1b$2@dont-email.me> <v5ajva$smd4$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v5akga$nr6u$1@dont-email.me> <v5aktu$smd4$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v5alis$o08r$1@dont-email.me> <v5alpo$smd5$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5am7l$o31i$1@dont-email.me> <v5an1e$o6ib$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5ao4p$smd4$10@i2pn2.org> <v5ap10$odqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5bjn9$ursa$1@i2pn2.org> <v5bt3m$v0vb$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5cuta$10m6o$2@i2pn2.org> <v5d0bf$162m0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5d188$10m6p$6@i2pn2.org> <v5d1ev$16a8b$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5d1mm$10m6o$8@i2pn2.org> <v5d3b4$16k7k$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5d4gj$10m6o$9@i2pn2.org> <v5d81s$17fhi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5d8fr$10m6o$12@i2pn2.org> <v5d9iv$1bem6$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5d9s6$10m6p$10@i2pn2.org> <v5daji$1bll8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 02:48:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1071320"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5daji$1bll8$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3617
Lines: 55

On 6/24/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/24/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
>>>>> *We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
>>>>
>>>> You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what I 
>>>> say.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You said that D correctly simulated by H must
>>>>> have the behavior of the directly executed D(D).
>>>>
>>>> Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the 
>>>> directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation,
>>>>
>>>> NOT ONE DIFFERENCE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Honest mistake or liar?
>>>
>>> The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to
>>> D correctly simulated by H1
>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns*
>>>
>>> This is not the same behavior as
>>> D correctly simulated by H
>>> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return*
>>>
>>
>> And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the direct 
>> executions trace?
>>
> 
> D correctly simulated by H
> *the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return*

Which isn't "Behavior of the input"

The "not happening" of something that could have happened except that 
the processing was stoped is NOT behavior.

> 
> D correctly simulated by H1 --- Identical to D(D)
> *the call from D to H(D,D) returns*
> 

Right, and it contains ALL of the behavior of the correct simulation of 
D by H, plus more.

H doesn't see DIFFERENT behavior, just LESS, and that differnce isn't 
due to the input, but due to H.