Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v3v92q$242e9$6@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 incorrectly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 10:30:34 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Message-ID: <v3v92q$242e9$6@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> <v3v8tp$39q1p$3@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 17:30:34 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ad5aa88e540ea762834522b410d9de6a"; logging-data="2230729"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TH/275o0dJm71HsHSz31A" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:oSndsibbMX1CAK01LNOMOe3qSaw= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v3v8tp$39q1p$3@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 3549 On 6/7/2024 10:27 AM, joes wrote: > 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. > 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 A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated by HH and simulated in the correct order. Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above definition of correct simulation. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer