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: key error in all the proofs --- fakers or liars?
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 23:08:17 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d3d3daa6a5db0610670444d80bb60a83190ccda7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@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>
	<b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org>
	<v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me>
	<d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org>
	<v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
	<8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org>
	<v9dugi$3fkag$1@dont-email.me>
	<9b0a6e2186fceb4c4edde377f68bc8e86a292086@i2pn2.org>
	<v9e3bs$3gfhv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 23:08:17 -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: 4671
Lines: 54

Am Mon, 12 Aug 2024 17:46:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/12/2024 5:31 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:23:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/12/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/24 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/12/2024 1:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/12/2024 12:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>>>> One thing I do note is that the trace sees conditional jump
>>>> instructions in the trace, but your "rule" is that there can be no
>>>> conditional instructions see in the full loop, so something is wrong.
>>>> Page 79, simulated the JNZ 00001335 at address 000012f8 Why wasn't
>>>> this counted as a conditional instruction in the trace? (That means
>>>> the recursion isn't unconditional)
>>>> So, mybe it is a correct partial emulation, but just ignores some of
>>>> the meaning, so that conditional recursion is incorrectly considered
>>>> to be infinite recursion. Perhaps you just failed to test you code to
>>>> see that it correctly detects conditional jump instructions.
How is that branch simulated?

>>>> Note, examining your code, your code also VIOLATES your requirement
>>>> to be a pure functikon.
>>>> First, in Init_Halts_HH you detect if you are the "root" decider by
>>>> look to see it the stack is at the initial prefilled value, and if so
>>>> make yourself the "root" and setup a trace buffer, and record that we
>>>> are the "Root"
>>>> Then in Decides_Halting_HH you test that Root flag, and only the
>>>> "Root"
>>>> decider actually does halt deciding, thus the copy of HHH that DDD
>>>> calls performs a DIFFERENT set of actions to the ones that the one
>>>> called by main does.
>>>> Thus, You are proven to be a liar that you code ACTUALLY acts as a
>>>> pure function. The static memory isn't just a way for the lower
>>>> emulator to have its results seen by the higher emulator, but the
>>>> emulators actually change from Halt Deciders to pure emulators when
>>>> they are nes
>> This is where I lose track. HHH is not simulating itself.
It changes behaviour based on a global variable.

>>>>>> that it doesn't simulate what happens in HHH after the jmp 000015e7
>>>>>> instruction, and thus you claim is still a LIE.
>>>>> That is counter factual.
>>>> Maybe it is recording but not looking at those instructions. Why else
>>>> is it ignoring the conditional instructions?
>>> I proved that your statements were counter-factual.
>> Above I see only your claim. What is simulated after that jump?
Still open.

>>> I finally found a group of tens of thousands of people that totally
>>> understand what I am saying.

-- 
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.