Path: 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 20:47:25 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <100qfrv$6j1f$5@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$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> <100qcf2$6j1f$1@dont-email.me>
 <100qcnr$6h70$1@dont-email.me> <100qes2$6j1g$1@dont-email.me>
 <100qf8b$7bjs$1@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 20:47:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4eccb3f3f363d163e571b8bff3e67b53";
	logging-data="216111"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KRDySJyqjQj4QgnyrmNH9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/mThLbW4IaFlJp8JfmG8r7BPDaI=
In-Reply-To: <100qf8b$7bjs$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 23.mei.2025 om 20:36 schreef olcott:
> On 5/23/2025 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 23.mei.2025 om 19:54 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/23/2025 12:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> 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. 
>>>
>>> It may seem this way to people lacking
>>> the capacity to pay complete attention.
>>>
>>> I dared people to show the exact mistake of
>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH and the best
>>> that they had was counter-factual statements.
>>
>> But you failed, 
> 
> *It is not my failure dip-shit*

It is.

> *I dared you to show a correct simulation*
> *of DDD by HHH where the simulated DDD reaches*
> *its own "ret" instruction*

And I told you that such a HHH does not exists. When will you finally 
understand that when something does not exists, it is very stupid to ask 
to show it?