Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work --- correct emulation
 --- CORRECTION
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 07:55:30 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1b74fcd36e0c03ebf2dcaa8d1a3d636485060e7b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vegfro$lk27$9@dont-email.me> <veimqs$14que$1@dont-email.me>
	<veipf3$15764$1@dont-email.me>
	<36ecdefcca730806c7bd9ec03e326fac1a9c8464@i2pn2.org>
	<vejcoj$1879f$1@dont-email.me>
	<034767682966b9ac642993dd2fa0d181c21dfffc@i2pn2.org>
	<vekj4q$1hrgd$1@dont-email.me>
	<f8a15594bf0623a229214e2fb62ce4f4a2bd7116@i2pn2.org>
	<velpm2$1n3gb$6@dont-email.me>
	<8f12bccec21234ec3802cdb3df63fd9566ba9b07@i2pn2.org>
	<vemc30$1q255$1@dont-email.me>
	<3b7102e401dc2d872ab53fd94fc433841caf3170@i2pn2.org>
	<vemhn0$1qqfr$2@dont-email.me>
	<61ffc8131435005aaf8976ddbf109b8f16c77668@i2pn2.org>
	<ven83o$2230b$1@dont-email.me>
	<a20cf5f40db4e9e4e5023a48d13e220443c4dea7@i2pn2.org>
	<vepli3$2f3g0$2@dont-email.me>
	<0975f9e6532bcbcb01481c57539fcd45e6b2ff8b@i2pn2.org>
	<vepn9n$2f3g0$4@dont-email.me>
	<1824607a6c6cab233d26fd6400e6d1a64df027a8@i2pn2.org>
	<vercoq$2qhve$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 07:55:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2553830"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4601
Lines: 52

Am Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:07:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/17/2024 6:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/16/24 8:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> HHH correctly emulates N steps of DDD therefore N steps of DDD are
>>> correctly emulated by HHH.
>> Right, but just because N steps don't get to the return, doesn't mean
>> that the input doesn't return.

Don't copypaste irrelevant shit. Are you saying that simulating only
finitely many loops is the same as infinitely many?

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.