Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 07:21:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bbd63df65b0063e5db90e806c032b8aa694a45d2@i2pn2.org>
References: <ves6p1$2uoln$1@dont-email.me>
 <3232d8a0cc7b5d4bba46321bf682c94573bf1b7c@i2pn2.org>
 <vesemu$2v7sh$1@dont-email.me>
 <a9fb95eb0ed914d0d9775448c005111eb43f2c5b@i2pn2.org>
 <veslpf$34ogr$1@dont-email.me>
 <647fe917c6bc0cfc78083ccf927fe280acdf2f9d@i2pn2.org>
 <vetq7u$3b8r2$1@dont-email.me>
 <d8006439ae02f55ba148e6be1f8c4787905a999f@i2pn2.org>
 <veu30q$3cqfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <19353b51a56711156d467a25959b94b51976802e@i2pn2.org>
 <vev0ic$3hnjq$2@dont-email.me>
 <907fa87f8679d5085795db6186840a0e892b57bb@i2pn2.org>
 <vev986$3me0u$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 11:21:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2727397"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vev986$3me0u$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6530
Lines: 117

On 10/18/24 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/18/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/18/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/18/2024 9:41 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 09:10:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 10/18/2024 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/17/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/24 7:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the x86 language DDD cannot possibly reach its own machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> address [00002183] no matter what HHH does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +-->[00002172]-->[00002173]-->[00002175]-->[0000217a]--+
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that 0000217a doesn't go to 00002172, but to 000015d2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Emulating HHH sees those addresses at its begining and then 
>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>> Then the HHH that it is emulating will see those addresses, but 
>>>>>>>> not the
>>>>>>>> outer one that is doing that emulation of HHH.
>>>>>>>> And so on.
>>>>>>>> Which HHH do you think EVER gets back to 00002172?
>>>>>>>> What instruction do you think that it emulates that would tell 
>>>>>>>> it to do
>>>>>>>> so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At best the trace is:
>>>>>>>> 00002172 00002173 00002175 0000217a conditional emulation of 
>>>>>>>> 00002172
>>>>>>>> conditional emulation of 00002173 conditional emulation of 00002175
>>>>>>>> conditional emulation of 0000217a CE of CE of 00002172 ...
>>>>>>> OK great this is finally good progress.
>>>>>> The more interesting part is HHH simulating itself, specifically the
>>>>>> if(Root) check on line 502.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That has nothing to do with any aspect of the emulation
>>>>> until HHH has correctly emulated itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and if HHH decides to abort its emulation, it also should know that
>>>>>>>> every level of condition emulation it say will also do the same 
>>>>>>>> thing,
>>>>>>> If I understand his words correctly Mike has already disagreed with
>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>> He hasn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
>>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>   > Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state (tape 
>>>>>>> contents
>>>>>>>   > etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there.
>>>>>>> This seems to indicate that the Turing machine UTM version of HHH 
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> somehow see each of the state transitions of the DDD resulting from
>>>>>>> emulating its own Turing machine description emulating DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course. It needs to, in order to simulate it. Strictly speaking
>>>>>> it has no idea of its simulation of a simulation two levels down,
>>>>>> only of the immediate simulation; the rest is just part of whatever
>>>>>> program the simulated simulator is simulating, which happens to be
>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  From the concrete execution trace of DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language people with
>>>>> sufficient technical competence can see that the halt status
>>>>> criteria that professor Sipser agreed to has been met.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Proven previously and you accepted by default by not pointing out an 
>>>> error.
>>>>
>>>> Your HHH neither "correctly simulated" per his definitions or 
>>>> correctly predicts the behavior of such a simulation, and thus never 
>>>> acheived the required criteria.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you are still trying to stupidly get away with saying
>>> that when a finite string of x86 code is emulated according
>>> to the semantics of the x86 language
>>>
>>> (including HHH emulating itself emulating DDD)
>>> THAT THE EMULATION CAN BE WRONG ???
>>>
>>
>> It is WRONG for the determination of the final behavior of DDD it is 
>> aborted.
>>
>> Remember, the "semantics of the x86 processor" includes the fact that 
>> the x86 processor WON'T STOP until it reaches a terminal instruction, 
>> and thus stopping before that isn't actually correct.
>>
>> If you are willing to admit partial behavior, it can be correct, but 
>> saying it will "never" do something, is unsupported.
> 
> https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
> Fully understands that HHH does correctly predict the behavior
> of DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language.
> 
> Try and post its response to your argument against this.
> It will be just like the reason why Trump doesn't want
> any more debates or interviews.
> 
> ChatGPT will make a fool of any rebuttal that you make of my work.
> 
> 

Because you have LIED to it, and AI is too stupid to catch that, because 
it has been programmed to try to agree with what it has been told.