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: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should
 I quit Richard at this point?
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 22:47:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4354k$3egp9$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me> <v3pp7p$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>
 <v3ve38$259cg$1@dont-email.me> <v3vf0b$24orn$4@dont-email.me>
 <v40u4u$2gi7t$1@dont-email.me> <v41k6l$2jqdk$8@dont-email.me>
 <v41l89$3cg3t$12@i2pn2.org> <v41nei$2kanc$8@dont-email.me>
 <v41oo8$3cg3t$22@i2pn2.org> <v41pbc$2kanc$15@dont-email.me>
 <v41raj$3cg3t$25@i2pn2.org> <v41s4e$2l7o9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v41sjf$3cg3s$8@i2pn2.org> <v41tj5$2ll6e$1@dont-email.me>
 <v41vc6$3cg3t$26@i2pn2.org> <v423a9$2m6lc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v426up$3de90$1@i2pn2.org> <v428ak$2no74$1@dont-email.me>
 <v42d6k$3de90$2@i2pn2.org> <v42e5i$2pofv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v42itv$3du6l$1@i2pn2.org> <v42j8p$2r808$2@dont-email.me>
 <v42jmv$3cg3t$33@i2pn2.org> <v42khp$2rs28$2@dont-email.me>
 <v42lsa$3cg3t$35@i2pn2.org> <v42m9c$2sko7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:47:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3621673"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v42m9c$2sko7$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4671
Lines: 72

On 6/8/24 6:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/8/2024 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/8/24 6:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2024 4:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/24 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/8/2024 4:37 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 15:15:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 2:59 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 13:36:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 1:12 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:10:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 10:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What are all the other HH?
>>>>>>>> Still waiting on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A simulator that simulates something different than the real 
>>>>>>>> thing is
>>>>>>>> not a simulator.
>>>>>>> DD *correctly* simulated by HH has provably different behavior 
>>>>>>> than the
>>>>>>> directly behavior of the executed DD(DD).
>>>>>  >
>>>>>> I mean, if one of them must be wrong, it can only be the simulator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I proved otherwise and you ignored it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am always going to stop reading at the first big mistake
>>>>> so this mistake can be focused on an corrected.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, you should have stopped reading your own writing decades ago.
>>>>
>>>> When are you going to fix your x86utm to match your current 
>>>> definition of correct simulation?
>>>
>>> The simulated of DD is proven to be correct by the fact
>>> that both execution traces match the x86 source-code of DD.
>>>
>>
>> Except that the actual x86 trace never gets back there, so this is NOT 
>> a "Correct simulation" trace of the input.
>>
> 
> Yes and by this same incorrect reasoning
> <sarcasm>
>    we know that all infinite recursion always
>    terminates normally because "infinite recursion" is a
>    term-of-the-art that means {terminates normally}.
> </sarcasm>
> 

So, how does the x86 processor get back to executing that adderess in 
the direct simulation by the outer HH as required by your definition of 
correct simulation.

Since you have admitted to falsifing your verification, you are going to 
have to actual show your information.

You are just proving your utter ignrance of the topic.

It seems your reply to being caught in an error is to just go sacrcastic.

Note, you are now going to be stuck proving your statements and will not 
get any progress from me until you do.