Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.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 17:24:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <v401b1$287qb$7@dont-email.me>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3vs5l$3ao52$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 00:24:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="99ea1b6838dd1404bad406fc122dbf0f";
	logging-data="2367307"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fj7fGYD6egAbWSkMlkWJ6"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6epsLOTuK+hFNH42lX85rR/o5/g=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3vs5l$3ao52$4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3961

On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote:
> 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 most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly
be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language.
Some people here have that.

>> 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?
> 

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