Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact ---
 last communication with Richard
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 19:00:45 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v403et$39ri6$15@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3o2dj$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> <v3vs5l$3ao52$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v401b1$287qb$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 23:00:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468870"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v401b1$287qb$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4101
Lines: 58

On 6/7/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

You seem confused.


I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually simulated.

The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your 
system, like the CALL H instruction.

You STILL Haven't published any results that match your current 
definition of correct simulation.


> 
>>> 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?
>>
>