Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly
 met
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 07:46:01 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <06d32a933762fe7417d02ddd13362a0adebfc558@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me>
 <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvjeqf$28555$1@dont-email.me> <vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me>
 <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjotc$28g5i$12@dont-email.me>
 <vvnh9u$3hd96$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me> <vvo71c$rlt$1@news.muc.de>
 <PlNTP.270466$lZjd.128570@fx05.ams4> <vvochv$15td$2@news.muc.de>
 <vvodn5$3na6l$3@dont-email.me>
 <1276edeb9893085c59b02bbbd59fe2c64011736b@i2pn2.org>
 <vvqk4s$gldn$12@dont-email.me> <vvqln4$g8ck$5@dont-email.me>
 <vvrftj$ndkg$1@dont-email.me> <vvrima$nejb$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvua3t$1hm37$1@dont-email.me>
 <cd36dcf87daefa9ae472cc426d57704c2baa4292@i2pn2.org>
 <10000hl$1v330$1@dont-email.me> <1000c4g$21dtc$2@dont-email.me>
 <1000ps6$24gr3$1@dont-email.me> <1000qd3$24jh0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 11:46:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="313410"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1000qd3$24jh0$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/13/25 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2025 7:58 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/13/2025 5:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2025 12:46 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> The global trace table does not record the simulation level for an 
>>>> entry, so the matching process is agnostic when it comes to 
>>>> simulation levels.   Also note there are many conditional branch 
>>>> instructions in HHH which would prevent matches occuring if we were 
>>>> to include HHH instructions in the examined trace!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes that is true. The program-under-test is not the test-program.
>>
>> FALSE!!!!
>>
>> It is *both* the test program *and* part of the program under test.  
>> As such, it is not allowed to be changed for any reason, hypothetical 
>> or otherwise.
>>
>>> When HHH is reporting on the behavior of the finite string of x86
>>> machine code specified by DD, 
>>
>> i.e. the machine code of the function DD, the machine code of the 
>> function HHH, and the machine code of everything that HHH calls down 
>> to the OS leve.
>>
> 
> *would never stop running unless aborted*
> Thus meets this spec:

But D does stop running without being aborted (but of course your H 
doesn't do that) as it calls the actual H that we actualy have that 
aborts its simulation of its input and returns 0 to D.

> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>      *would never stop running unless aborted* then
> 
> 
> 

But since the correct simulation of THAT D, the one given to H, that is 
a program (unlike your claims) that calls the actual H (which aborts and 
returns 0) will show that D halts, your H can't correctly show that it 
doesn't, and you are shown to have just lied.

Sorry, you sunk your own battleship.