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 20:02:41 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <92373359ad257199f3190fc4ecf935bbc4d3017a@i2pn2.org>
References: <vegfro$lk27$9@dont-email.me> <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>
	<8cb59c1760f051701155070c17b7828ef660aaad@i2pn2.org>
	<vep2fe$2brl4$3@dont-email.me>
	<1d42fdf05bce4ae265def55ab146459a6a15e78b@i2pn2.org>
	<vep4pp$2cb88$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 20:02:41 -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: 4844
Lines: 54

Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:39:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 10/16/2024 2:33 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:59:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 10/16/2024 1:47 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Which totally does not matter to the slightest degree when you have
>>> the discipline to stay within the precisely designated scope of the
>>> exact words that I am saying.
>>> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD
>>> *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls cannot possibly return
>>> no matter what this HHH does.
>> Exactly, because your nested HHHs do not abort.
> In other words you continue to fail to understand that unless the first
> one aborts then none of them can possibly abort because they all have
> the exact same code.
Then HHH should report itself as halting, when they would all abort.

>>>>>>>>>>> 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.