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
Subject: Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the
 execution trace
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:49:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <07bb5bd67b00c89451e048b97dab620a51bbeb82@i2pn2.org>
References: <v80h07$2su8m$3@dont-email.me>
 <0amdndFJSZSzYD77nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v8102f$2vo8u$1@dont-email.me> <v83fhe$3gihn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v83hmk$3gvj7$1@dont-email.me> <v83jc9$3gihm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v83juc$3ham9$1@dont-email.me> <v8519e$3s7bv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v88h9e$i7kl$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2024 23:49:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="812577"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v88h9e$i7kl$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4114
Lines: 63

On 7/29/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/28/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-27 20:05:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>> If you had sufficient understanding of the x86 language
>>> you would know that DDD is correctly emulated by HHH.
>>
>> If you had suffient understanding of x86 language and correctness
>> you would know that DDD is incorrectly emnulated by HHH.
>>
> 
> This is only seems that way because every reviewer makes sure
> to ignore one aspect of the basis of another.
> 
> <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
> 
>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

But since the definition that Professor Sipser uses of a "Correct 
Simulation" is one that exactly reproduces the behavior of the machine 
described by the input, and thus can not "abort" it simulation, but can 
only stop when it reaches a final state, your decider HHH does not do 
such a simulation (orit wouldn't be a decider) so it can't use itself as 
a basis to abort, and it doesn't correctly determine that an ACTUAL 
correct simulation will not halt, as since your H DOES abort and return, 
the simulation by the real correct simulaiton will reach the end, thus 
your H was just incorrect to do the abort.

Remember, the input DDD INCLUDES a copy of the HHH that you are using to 
claim to be right, and thus doesn't change when we hand the input to 
that actual correct simulator.

> 
> _DDD()
> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002174] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
> 
> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH until HHH correctly
> determines that
> 
>   *its simulated DDD would never stop running unless aborted*
>   *its simulated DDD would never stop running unless aborted*
>   *its simulated DDD would never stop running unless aborted*
> 

Nope, the CORRECT simulation of DDD will halt BECAUSE your HHH aborts 
its simulation, and thus doesn't do a correct simulation of the input, 
and thus can't claim the second paragraph.


You are just proving your stupidity, and the fact that you are nothing 
more than a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot that recklessly 
disregards the truth, even after having it pointed out to you many times.