Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's
 10/2022 analysis
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 10:05:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <v3v7j8$242e9$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3l7uo$13cp$8@dont-email.me> <v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3mq9j$chc3$1@dont-email.me> <v3mrli$chc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3nkqr$h7f9$3@dont-email.me> <v3p4ka$sk6h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3pp7p$v133$8@dont-email.me> <v3s27e$1f9kd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3sf1n$1gra7$11@dont-email.me> <v3sjo9$1ialb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3skoo$1iedv$1@dont-email.me> <v3u9ej$1v7rn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3v6i7$23l33$1@dont-email.me> <v3v70o$21qlc$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:05:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ad5aa88e540ea762834522b410d9de6a";
	logging-data="2230729"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19+pQiv+XEYZrair7KdLLmL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dM1MXlJ9h6MuLfHrfXGg3HNTRDo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3v70o$21qlc$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3328

On 6/7/2024 9:55 AM, Python wrote:
> Le 07/06/2024 à 16:47, olcott a écrit :
>> ... Turing machines can only take finite string
>> inputs thus cannot take Turing machines as inputs.
> 
> WTF??? Since then a Turing machine cannot be represented
> as a finite string?
> 

Turing machines can take a finite string machine description
of the computation that contains themselves they cannot
the computation that actually contains themselves.

It anyone is paying 100% complete attention then they will
see that the there is no correct rebuttal to the following.

Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.

_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH


>> The issue here is that I proved that DD correctly simulated
>> by HH has different behavior than the directly executed
>> DD(DD) and everyone's "rebuttal" to this proof is to simply
>> ignore it.
> 
> "correctly simulated" has "different than directly executed"
> 

When you actually try to form a rebuttal of the above you will
see that I am correct. So far everyone simply ignores the proof
that I am correct as their only rebuttal.

> This is dementia at the higher degree.
> 
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer