Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3vs5l$3ao52$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$jm9q$1@dont-email.me> <v3r914$354i9$7@i2pn2.org>
	<v3r9ds$1b96e$1@dont-email.me> <v3rb52$354ia$7@i2pn2.org>
	<v3rbaj$1bg3t$1@dont-email.me> <v3rc4m$354i9$8@i2pn2.org>
	<v3rcgn$1bpcn$1@dont-email.me> <v3rcks$354i9$9@i2pn2.org>
	<v3rd3r$1bsem$1@dont-email.me> <v3s5g6$36git$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v3sc8c$1gra7$2@dont-email.me> <v3tq33$388rj$13@i2pn2.org>
	<v3tstr$1td1o$2@dont-email.me> <v3tuqh$388ri$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v3v0qj$22vrk$1@dont-email.me> <v3v85d$39ri5$11@i2pn2.org>
	<v3vacl$242e9$8@dont-email.me> <v3vh9l$a5e$2@news.muc.de>
	<v3vhvq$25ojk$2@dont-email.me> <v3vj8p$39ri6$7@i2pn2.org>
	<v3vk9b$266aq$2@dont-email.me>
	<8c92495d4433776d8ddc4706fb1de05b245f5829.camel@gmail.com>
	<v3vn5u$26d04$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 20:56:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3498146"; 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: 3367
Lines: 37

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote:
>> On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,
>>>
>> The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:
>> IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return.
>> ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return.
>> ELSE HP is undecidable
>> 
> When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only required to
> report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest
> people merely use that as another deflection point for their dishonesty.
> The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one
> one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they have
> simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years.
"only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same when
simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My result
simulating this is right, because it is my result!".

> The fact that the execution trace of P derived by the executed H and the
> simulated H exactly matches the machine code of P proves that each
> instruction of P was simulated correctly and in the correct order this
> conclusively proves that P is correctly simulated by both of these
> instances of H.
Does the called H also match?

-- 
joes