Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work --- correct emulation Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 09:17:15 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 64 Message-ID: References: <36ecdefcca730806c7bd9ec03e326fac1a9c8464@i2pn2.org> <034767682966b9ac642993dd2fa0d181c21dfffc@i2pn2.org> <8f12bccec21234ec3802cdb3df63fd9566ba9b07@i2pn2.org> <3b7102e401dc2d872ab53fd94fc433841caf3170@i2pn2.org> <61ffc8131435005aaf8976ddbf109b8f16c77668@i2pn2.org> <0975f9e6532bcbcb01481c57539fcd45e6b2ff8b@i2pn2.org> <921b15de6805fedfee61deb254f2f9f93cd3b6c9@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:17:16 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="038c6a2fd0ca42e5af4fa5df3c3c0f47"; logging-data="3515234"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19tohvl0ezIdhbBEUI5zfUD" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:qbYr5+M/kCIq5ev4xM7JaybjwX8= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241018-4, 10/18/2024), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <921b15de6805fedfee61deb254f2f9f93cd3b6c9@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 5439 On 10/18/2024 3:25 AM, joes wrote: > Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:55:18 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 10/16/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 10/16/24 8:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 10/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 10/15/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 10/15/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/15/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 2:33 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:11:30 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/24 11:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 7:06 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:49:22 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-13 12:53:12 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e When you click on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the link and try to explain how HHH must be wrong when it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports that DDD does not terminate because DDD does >>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate it will explain your mistake to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I did that, and it admitted that DDD halts, it just tries to >>>>>>>>>>>>> justify why a wrong answer must be right. >>>>>>>>>>>> It explains in great detail that another different DDD (same >>>>>>>>>>>> machine code different process context) seems to terminate >>>>>>>>>>>> only because the recursive emulation that it specifies has >>>>>>>>>>>> been aborted at its second recursive call. >>>>>>>>>>> Yes! It really has different code, by way of the static Root >>>>>>>>>>> variable. >>>>>>>>>>> No wonder it behaves differently. >>>>>>>>>> There are no static root variables. There never has been any >>>>>>>>>> "not a pure function of its inputs" aspect to emulation. >>>>>>>>> Oh, did you take out the check if HHH is the root simulator? >>>>>>>> There is some code that was obsolete several years ago. >>>>>>> No, that code is still active. it is the source of the value for >>>>>>> the variable Root that is passed around, and is checked in the code >>>>>>> to alter the behavior. >>>>>> It has no effect on the trace itself. >>>>> Yes it does. >>>> HHH is correctly emulating (not simulating) the x86 language finite >>>> string of DDD including emulating the finite string of itself >>>> emulating the finite string of DDD up until the point where the >>>> emulated emulated DDD would call HHH(DDD) again. >>> Nope, not to a degree that determine the final behavior of the input. >> You are responding to something that I did not say. > Did you say that HHH does not determine the behaviour of DDD? > >> HHH correctly emulates N steps of DDD therefore N steps of DDD are >> correctly emulated by HHH. > Yes, and the rest are not simulated at all, not even incorrectly. > My recent response to Richard explains this all in great depth. No sense repeating it here. I spent 1.5 hours on writing and rewriting this reply to Richard several times. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer