Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 17:56:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3f240d47745b8901d463ef13bb49ccfe675b532b@i2pn2.org>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <100ag73$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$6@dont-email.me> <100rs8l$j8fg$1@dont-email.me>
 <100sos8$p071$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 21:57:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1783864"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <100sos8$p071$9@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5642
Lines: 96

On 5/24/25 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2025 2:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-05-23 16:24:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, a paraphrase preserves the meaning though may focus to a particular
>> aspect of that meaning. You were trying a straw man deception.
>>
>> If you don't disagree with their actual statement then you don't 
>> disagree.
>>
> 
> People do expect that DDD emulated by HHH according to
> the rules of the x86 language will have the same behavior
> of the directly executed DDD. They are far too dishonest
> to see that this is impossible.

How?

All that shows is that HHH doesn't do the correct simulation according 
to the rules of the x86 language, and thus that you are just a liar when 
you claim it doesn.

> 
> The only way that their goal could be implemented is
> the kind of cheats that I provided about.
> 
> If you want DDD emulated by HHH to halt then you must
> cheat.
> 

Nope, the "cheat" is on on you.