Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:38:35 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 129 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:38:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7511da41317e1c66c22f772cd659795f"; logging-data="1227484"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9SBy8WbD4RLGKR3z4L1Kh" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Phe+Bhn2sHYyRlYgZ/1gKqVZRcQ= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7442 On 6/11/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-10 14:59:33 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/10/2024 1:30 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-09 16:23:37 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/9/2024 10:56 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-09 13:58:35 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/9/2024 3:38 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-06-09 04:02:11 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 10:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 6:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 6:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 4:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 5:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 4:37 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 15:15:45 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 2:59 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 13:36:04 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 1:12 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:10:33 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 10:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What are all the other HH? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still waiting on this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulator that simulates something different than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the real thing is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a simulator. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD *correctly* simulated by HH has provably different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly behavior of the executed DD(DD). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean, if one of them must be wrong, it can only be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulator. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I proved otherwise and you ignored it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am always going to stop reading at the first big mistake >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so this mistake can be focused on an corrected. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you should have stopped reading your own writing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decades ago. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When are you going to fix your x86utm to match your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current definition of correct simulation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulated of DD is proven to be correct by the fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that both execution traces match the x86 source-code of DD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that the actual x86 trace never gets back there, so >>>>>>>>>>>>> this is NOT a "Correct simulation" trace of the input. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes and by this same incorrect reasoning >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>    we know that all infinite recursion always >>>>>>>>>>>>    terminates normally because "infinite recursion" is a >>>>>>>>>>>>    term-of-the-art that means {terminates normally}. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, how does the x86 processor get back to executing that >>>>>>>>>>> adderess in the direct simulation by the outer HH as required >>>>>>>>>>> by your definition of correct simulation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are you asking how does infinite recursion terminate normally? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, are you THAT stupid? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I only missed Mensa by one point I am in the top 97% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In Mensa we call your kind of people "normal". >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thus directly disagreeing with the technical term that is >>>>>> applied to standard deviations above the mean. Top 3% is >>>>>> on the tail of the bell curve. >>>>> >>>>> Loosely speaking all but last 2% is normal, and peoöoe usually >>>>> speak loosely. >>>>> >>>> >>>> More than two standard deviations above the mean is atypical. >>>> Two standard deviations below the mean is the measure of mental >>>> impairment qualifying for disability benefits. >>>> >>>> An actual Mensa member would know this. >>> >>> The difference between two standard deviations from mean and >>> past 98% of the population is so small it does not matter. >> >> My IQ is more than two standard deviations above the mean >> when we assume that a standard deviation is 15. > > Which assumption might be incorrect. Usually IQ tests are normalized so > that their standard deviation is 16 but sometines a different normalization > is used. Yes and at a standard deviation of 16 my 132 IQ just barely flunked Mensa by a tiny fraction of a percent top 2.28% > Mensa does not specify any IQ value as acceptance limit but having > a higher IQ than 98% of population. > Yes I know this. They gave me two tests and I scored above 140 on one of them and still only got top 3%. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer