Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: point by point --- in our head
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 07:19:40 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7c735b221306e12d1b72e79b616f35ab5dd367c3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
	<561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
	<v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
	<aa4bc24ac5642087e81796fffc31e5022bd8823e@i2pn2.org>
	<v9h9ec$a0id$1@dont-email.me>
	<190847da05ab48555c036a799e768f555461eb43@i2pn2.org>
	<v9hbhm$abr9$1@dont-email.me>
	<28bda6bb7d9efdacadf3de76c85a4857d0f83cb3@i2pn2.org>
	<v9ibpq$f16v$4@dont-email.me>
	<be041261e6d47d07a3b29255dc408e6803d870ad@i2pn2.org>
	<v9jnm0$q0lv$1@dont-email.me>
	<54c2cf5516e1477512a9dc4df913c8747164c631@i2pn2.org>
	<v9jom1$q5o5$1@dont-email.me>
	<192e56d5bedc6f7e537857a2cf21af0d9a352edd@i2pn2.org>
	<v9jpms$qaaf$1@dont-email.me>
	<8f9bb44064cab68e97b57ace4988d14928448672@i2pn2.org>
	<v9jrmt$qio5$1@dont-email.me>
	<2ac05356328ae560088cb3887b3b64351fb7ac19@i2pn2.org>
	<v9lbmv$119bh$2@dont-email.me>
	<f5fb8734b03c46c7a70dceb81db2f2f2fc6fc424@i2pn2.org>
	<v9mdmn$19n30$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 07:19:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2749386"; 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: 4797
Lines: 56

Am Thu, 15 Aug 2024 21:31:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/15/2024 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/15/24 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2024 6:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/14/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/14/2024 10:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 6:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2024 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/14/24 12:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 11:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> But, must behave the rules of Computation Theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That means DDD, to be a program, includes the code of HHH,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and that HHH obeys the requirements of programs in
>>>>>>>>>>>> computation theory, which means that it always produces the
>>>>>>>>>>>> same answer to its caller for the same input.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, its "Behavior" is defined as what it would do when run,
>>>>>>>>>>>> even if it never is,
>>>>>>>>>>> No that is the big mistake of comp theory where it violates
>>>>>>>>>>> its own rules.
>>>>>>>>>> WHAT rule does it violate? And where do you get it from?
>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you don't care.
>>>>>>>>> You are like a bot programmed in rebuttal mode.
>>>>>>>> I guess you don't have an answer, AGAIN.
>>>>>>> Go back and look at the last 500 times that I answer it.
>>>>>> You make the claim, but can't show a reliable source for it.
>>>>> I make a claim and prove that it is correct and you change the
>>>>> subject and form a rebuttal of the changed subject.
>>>> No, you make a claim and present a false argument, not a proof.
>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
>> It is a simuolation of *ONLY* the first N instructions of DDD,
> That is what I said.
> It is also true that the correct simulation of N instructions is enough
> for something like mathematical induction to correctly predict the
> behavior of an unlimited simulation.
What a shitshow.
A simulation of a limited number of instructions, or one that is aborted,
or incomplete, does not show the same behaviour, by virtue of all the
following instructions that were not simulated. Nobody was disputing
the simulation of the instructions themselves; rather which instructions
were or were not simulated.

-- 
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.