Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations incorrectly determine non-halting
 ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:27:53 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3v8tp$39q1p$3@i2pn2.org>
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:27:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3467321"; 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: 2409
Lines: 19

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 10:05:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/7/2024 9:55 AM, Python wrote:
>> Le 07/06/2024 à 16:47, olcott a écrit :
> Turing machines can take a finite string machine description of the
> computation that contains themselves they cannot the computation that
> actually contains themselves.
Does not parse.
Recursion can be encoded in a finite string.

>>> 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.
> 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.
The rebuttal is that a simulation should behave the same as the real 
thing.

-- 
joes