Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Python <python@invalid.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's
 10/2022 analysis
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 17:09:05 +0200
Organization: CCCP
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <v3v7qh$21qlc$4@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>
 <v3v7j8$242e9$2@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 17:09:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a1f1891753654cb88b89123a5808f378";
	logging-data="2157228"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HJBWOV/YWzXhj5zO5vyzg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tFtcyT4yfo85nUN7K54kDY+GJi0=
In-Reply-To: <v3v7j8$242e9$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3561

Le 07/06/2024 à 17:05, olcott a écrit :
> 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.

You forgot a few verbs in your answer.

Anyway, you're wrong : a Turing machine can take its own
description as part of its input, as it is finite.

> 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.

If you change the meaning of the word "correctly", sure :-)

>> This is dementia at the higher degree.