Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v435nv$355ev$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should
 I quit Richard at this point?
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:58:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <v435nv$355ev$1@dont-email.me>
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>
 <v4354k$3egp9$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 04:58:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8e472f6a5ded880f3c8d2cedf42e75a";
	logging-data="3315167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Wxq4m22As6XbtdfTUoFGp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:m+RbrE9BcRqauCuPM0bPlBqCzhM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v4354k$3egp9$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5157

On 6/8/2024 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

Are you asking how does infinite recursion terminate normally?

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

*I have proved this point since three years ago*
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
[Would the simulation of D be infinitely nested unless simulating 
partial halt decider H terminated its simulation of D?]
Message-ID: <YJKdnZg9v__rCC_9nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>



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