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: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:21:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2ab957bdaefc67783798257a40abc1fbac04f03e@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$7@dont-email.me> <v8a31r$u7n5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8btl5$184u7$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 01:21:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="931475"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v8btl5$184u7$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3818
Lines: 60

On 7/30/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/30/2024 2:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-29 16:50:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> It is perfectly OK to ignore irrelevant details. A relevant detail
>> is the meaning of the word "emulate" as that determines what is a
>> correct emulation and what is not.
>>
> 
> *It is not OK to ignore*
> 
> This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers:
> <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>
> 
> for DDD correctly emulated by HHH until...


But correctly emulated by HHH until... is not correctly emulated by HHH.

If you stop doing something that you are supposed to continue doing, you 
haven't done it correctly.


Note, Professor Sipser statement is that if the decide can prove that 
the input would not halt if given to a totally correct simulator. Note, 
That means *THIS* input, exactly as given to H, which if it calls that 
H, includes still calling *THAT* H, not something else.

When we do that, and H does the abort and return, then the correct 
simulation sees the input call H which will then simulate for a while, 
abort and return and thus the correct simulation halts, and thus H could 
not have "correctly determined" that it didn't halt.

THus, H was just incorrect in its behavior.

You are just caught trying to play a shell game and LYING by changing 
the input.

Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a pathetic ignorant 
pathological lying idiot who recklessly disregards the truth that has 
been shown him, becuase you have brainwashed yourself to beleive your 
own lies.