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: Peter Olcott seems to consistently lie about this ---
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:42:03 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d3922d7b6b010d72c8987d231f1e57f7a0ac78af@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8hf52$2jl7d$1@dont-email.me>
 <KNqcndx8Sacd3TH7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <8c7fcb21223d5d1b19e03d484024b02eab5aaadf@i2pn2.org>
 <v8higj$2kegl$1@dont-email.me>
 <0f117b9c47b8aaeb92b45f28fbe7a4f56eae8b81@i2pn2.org>
 <v8hkao$2koul$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 14:42:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1215790"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v8hkao$2koul$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3550
Lines: 57

On 8/1/24 11:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/1/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/1/24 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/1/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/1/24 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>
>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>
>>>> But only for th right definition of "Correctly Simulated" which 
>>>> means of the exact input without aborting.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
>>>>> language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
>>>>> emulates itself emulating DDD
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Call HHH needs to be followed in the trace by the instructions of HHH
>>>>
>>>> And you "full Trace" printouts are NOT the trace that HHH Makes, but 
>>>> are traces OF HHH doing its decision.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The bottom line has always been (for three years now) that the
>>> fact that the next lines of DDD, (and DD) have always been the
>>> next lines that a correct x86 emulator would correctly emulate
>>> proves that HHH (and HH) did emulate these lines correctly
>>> *EVEN IF IT DID THIS BY WILD GUESS*
>>>
>>> Because of this all of the calls for a full execution trace
>>> have never been more than sadistic trollish head games.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you just don't understand what the x86 processor actually does.
>>
> 
> I was the #1 student out of 45 students of my operating
> system internals class beating out three instructors of
> other classes. I still have this same degree of skill.
> x86utm <is> a multi-tasking operating system.
> 

Then why are you so dumb now?

Where do you get the correct emulation of the x86 call instruction 
doesn't go into the function called.

Removing ignorance means you have no ground to claim your false 
statements are nothing but DELIBERATE LIES, bssed on a pathologically 
reckless disregard for the truth.