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
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:47:22 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8cb59c1760f051701155070c17b7828ef660aaad@i2pn2.org>
References: <vegfro$lk27$9@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>
	<bfa96cc6bd41f1351cf3c47ec5712b7fc3803f6d@i2pn2.org>
	<vemo4j$1roph$1@dont-email.me>
	<82cb937f8012d3353dde47aa2d8565883d10a92a@i2pn2.org>
	<veof7v$284qn$3@dont-email.me>
	<4b093cf3a6d52cfe4e763a81d623eb66c817cb7f@i2pn2.org>
	<veohia$29dtl$1@dont-email.me>
	<a70bf39f5d3d3ba1f34130dc60d735cc32c8f779@i2pn2.org>
	<veomn9$29dtl$3@dont-email.me>
	<b9f7bcdf67813f0f96d550b78ac6b2d25d414ee8@i2pn2.org>
	<veou4p$2baph$3@dont-email.me>
	<45e53fc60dfc649ed11a8704e5d860766dd88955@i2pn2.org>
	<vep10l$2brl4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 18:47:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2247835"; 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: 3845
Lines: 38

Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:35:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/16/2024 1:06 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:46:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 10/16/2024 12:27 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:39:21 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 10/16/2024 9:45 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:11:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 10/16/2024 9:01 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:31:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2024 1:33 AM, joes wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Terminating C functions must reach their "return" statement.
>>>>>>>> Which DDD does.
>>>>>>> THIS IS ALSO THE INDUSTRY STANDARD DEFINITION It is stipulated
>>>>>>> that *correct_x86_emulation* means that a finite string of x86
>>>>>>> instructions is emulated according to the semantics of the x86
>>>>>>> language beginning with the first bytes of this string.
>>>>>> You are not simulating the given program, but a version that
>>>>>> differs in the abort check.
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Whereupon the simulated HHH would abort, if it weren't unnecessarily
>>>> aborted.
>>> If the first HHH to meet its abort criteria does not act on this
>>> criteria then none of them do.
>> And if the first one does, all of them do.
> In theory this seems true when ignoring or failing to comprehend key
> details.
In practice you programmed H impurely.

>>>>>>> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each
>>>>>>> DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.
>>>>>> It is not a correct emulation if it has a different termination
>>>>>> status.
-- 
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.