Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:58:07 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 83 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 04:58:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8e472f6a5ded880f3c8d2cedf42e75a"; logging-data="3315167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Wxq4m22As6XbtdfTUoFGp" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:m+RbrE9BcRqauCuPM0bPlBqCzhM= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5157 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? > Since you have admitted to falsifing your verification, you are going to > have to actual show your information. > *I have proved this point since three years ago* On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: [Would the simulation of D be infinitely nested unless simulating partial halt decider H terminated its simulation of D?] Message-ID: -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer