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: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- key error
 in all the proofs --- Mike
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 23:03:11 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <934c77955c4d606e8ce00b97add21cf87b7d5793@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me>
	<f2715e52691fec808c2ae5953e65fb42f4e19fa9@i2pn2.org>
	<v98mj9$tunr$1@dont-email.me>
	<86cbe5924d3495f56986483f79567af3e6efde8a@i2pn2.org>
	<v98qbj$ul50$1@dont-email.me>
	<49e9799be11c5e626bc05a421227bb7563982f0d@i2pn2.org>
	<v98uf7$vepo$1@dont-email.me>
	<60f1a533219c1237071f358999228eb48727f5e9@i2pn2.org>
	<v991tu$vepo$2@dont-email.me>
	<895f5e9b934bbfb72925fb109043500d49100a6a@i2pn2.org>
	<v994vs$10cfm$1@dont-email.me>
	<dec62801011bc5bf0b9eb9a62c607cf407198609@i2pn2.org>
	<v99870$14mlk$1@dont-email.me>
	<0f8f134fe961ee00910cce1d7f05b632d7567c6c@i2pn2.org>
	<v9abfu$2nabt$1@dont-email.me>
	<86c21e8a63450bf8b0c32f4f17ba0b503a914fe0@i2pn2.org>
	<v9d01i$39tbd$2@dont-email.me>
	<2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org>
	<v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me>
	<e614d6b981fd5fa6eefc84894a14448d4663e3c7@i2pn2.org>
	<v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me>
	<64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
	<v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 23:03:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2363179"; 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: 5568
Lines: 73

Am Mon, 12 Aug 2024 11:52:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/12/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/12/2024 11:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/12/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2024 10:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/12/24 9:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/12/2024 8:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/12/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/24 8:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you cannot see that the following code exactly
>>>>>>>>>>>> matches the x86 source-code of DDD thus proving that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> second HHH did emulate it input correctly?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem is that that is not the COMPLETE x86 source code
>>>>>>>>>>> of the PROGRAM DDD, as that needs the code for HHH included in
>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>> A correct x86 emulation of DDD includes the correct emulation
>>>>>>>>>>> of HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It does do this yet mixing in the 200 pages of other code makes
>>>>>>>>>> it too difficult to see the execution trace of DDD.
>>>>>>>>> No, to make a claim, you need to provide the actual proof.
>>>>>>>> Four expert C programmers (two with masters degrees in computer
>>>>>>>> science) agree that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But your HHH doesn't "Correctly Simulate" DDD by the same
>>>>>>> definition that makes that true.
>>>>>> When I state verified facts I am definitely not a liar even when I
>>>>>> do not make this verification available to others.
This is just too funny.

>>>>>>> Also, "4 experts" don't make a proof, just a logical fallacy,
>>>>>>> which just also prove you don't know what you are talking about,
>>>>>>> but are just a pathological liar.
QFT

>>> But the CONDITION isn't that it won't halt until aborted, but it will
>>> not halt EVER.
>> When you insist on disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
>> an many times as you have it is unreasonably implausible to construe
>> this as any sort of honest mistake.
Have you ever clarified what the disagreement is about?

> I am absolutely shocked that Mike disagrees though.
Shocked, I say!

> That he will not point out any divergence of the x86 execution trace of
> DDD emulated by HHH from the semantics of the x86 language is
> significant indication seems quite telling that he is wrong.
The divergence is that the simulation is aborted, i.e. the following
instructions are not simulated. Preemptively: of course a nonterminating
program can't be simulated in finite time.

-- 
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.