Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 19:49:20 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <100qcf2$6j1f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <1007kan$3qb7l$8@dont-email.me>
 <1009n2d$b9ol$1@dont-email.me> <100ag73$g1r8$1@dont-email.me>
 <100c83u$tspg$1@dont-email.me> <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me>
 <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <221167c1bbedbbda1934b12f6b2c72de2c3a1f78@i2pn2.org>
 <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me>
 <c5c825970bebea6bd8bfde7077f7ffc5ba0c30f5@i2pn2.org>
 <100dedr$15dil$3@dont-email.me>
 <771e0f3f36c9914146f675bc9e2c1c0e7903c116@i2pn2.org>
 <100dfc8$15qbo$1@dont-email.me>
 <35c9fb020e868823c3e46c006d9ac4698eaf4f82@i2pn2.org>
 <100dl6g$16vdn$1@dont-email.me>
 <f02a2fb26f6e1dedd29638f9b42befaab4781f17@i2pn2.org>
 <100dst7$18epo$1@dont-email.me> <100f18f$1iree$1@dont-email.me>
 <100gvv6$22oen$2@dont-email.me> <100h9le$24iha$1@dont-email.me>
 <100i43k$292ko$2@dont-email.me> <100k1si$2o9h6$1@dont-email.me>
 <100kro3$2tae8$1@dont-email.me> <100mmkl$3cdk8$1@dont-email.me>
 <100o8s8$3md6k$3@dont-email.me> <100p662$3vgfi$1@dont-email.me>
 <100q7fq$5buc$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 19:49:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4eccb3f3f363d163e571b8bff3e67b53";
	logging-data="216111"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Q2tSLtgwT92zdq9iCtzuH"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u9Q5RkTI59zThCQPDHTJl1SVPfs=
In-Reply-To: <100q7fq$5buc$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 5224

Op 23.mei.2025 om 18:24 schreef olcott:
> On 5/23/2025 1:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-22 22:35:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/22/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-21 15:33:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/21/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-05-20 14:37:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/20/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-20 04:20:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that we are only evaluating whether
>>>>>>>>> or not HHH/DDD meets this above criteria?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do understand that the meaning of the behaviour is not mentioned
>>>>>>>> in the creteria and is therefore irrelevant, an obvious consequence
>>>>>>>> of which is that your "WRONG!" above is false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *H correctly simulates its input D until*
>>>>>>> specifies that HHH must simulate DDD according
>>>>>>> to the meaning of the rules of the x86 language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The words Sipser agreed to do not refer to that specification, and
>>>>>> is irrelevant to the fact that the meaning of the behaviour, if
>>>>>> there is any, isn't referred there, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure they do. There is only a single measure of
>>>>> *H correctly simulates its input D*
>>>>> When the language of D is the x86 language.
>>>>
>>>> No, they do not. Sipser said nothing about any specific language. That
>>>> you may apply his words to a specific language does not mean that
>>>> Sipser referred to that language.
>>>
>>> *If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D*
>>> What is the criterion measure of a correct simulation?
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>
>>> The damned liars here are trying to get away with
>>> a correct simulation of DDD interprets: "push ebp"
>>> to mean "jmp 000021a3"
>>
>> A straw man fallcy is a lie, so you are lying.
>>
> 
> I am paraphrasing.
> They stupidly expect that DDD emulated by HHH must
> have the same behavior as DDD emulated by HHH1.
> The ONLY way to do that is for HHH to emulate
> DDD AGAINST THE RULES OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.
> 

Because it is against the rules of the X86 language it is stupid to 
expect that one correct simulation differs from another correct 
simulation. The X86 language specifies only one behaviour. That HHH does 
not see that behaviour, does not prove that that behaviour is not specified.
Try to think! Come out of rebuttal mode. Face the verifiable facts 
instead of your dream.