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: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work --- correct emulation
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 08:25:42 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <921b15de6805fedfee61deb254f2f9f93cd3b6c9@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 08:25:42 -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: 4805
Lines: 57

Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:55:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 7:06 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:49:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-13 12:53:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/
>>>>>>>>>>>>> share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e When you click on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the link and try to explain how HHH must be wrong when it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports that DDD does not terminate because DDD does
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate it will explain your mistake to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
Did you say that HHH does not determine the behaviour of DDD?

> HHH correctly emulates N steps of DDD therefore N steps of DDD are
> correctly emulated by HHH.
Yes, and the rest are not simulated at all, not even incorrectly.

-- 
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.