Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.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: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should
 I quit Richard at this point?
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:38:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <v4a22s$15ems$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@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> <v435nv$355ev$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4390i$3egpa$1@i2pn2.org> <v439g3$368s4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v43plg$3begc$1@dont-email.me> <v44ceb$3harn$4@dont-email.me>
 <v44jau$3k39u$1@dont-email.me> <v44ku9$3jnc8$9@dont-email.me>
 <v466hu$7q6t$1@dont-email.me> <v474cl$ggn5$5@dont-email.me>
 <v48unr$uo9g$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:38:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7511da41317e1c66c22f772cd659795f";
	logging-data="1227484"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9SBy8WbD4RLGKR3z4L1Kh"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Phe+Bhn2sHYyRlYgZ/1gKqVZRcQ=
In-Reply-To: <v48unr$uo9g$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7442

On 6/11/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-10 14:59:33 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/10/2024 1:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-09 16:23:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/9/2024 10:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-09 13:58:35 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/9/2024 3:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-09 04:02:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2024 10:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/8/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, are you THAT stupid?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I only missed Mensa by one point I am in the top 97%
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Mensa we call your kind of people "normal".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus directly disagreeing with the technical term that is
>>>>>> applied to standard deviations above the mean. Top 3% is
>>>>>> on the tail of the bell curve.
>>>>>
>>>>> Loosely speaking all but last 2% is normal, and peoöoe usually
>>>>> speak loosely.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More than two standard deviations above the mean is atypical.
>>>> Two standard deviations below the mean is the measure of mental
>>>> impairment qualifying for disability benefits.
>>>>
>>>> An actual Mensa member would know this.
>>>
>>> The difference between two standard deviations from mean and
>>> past 98% of the population is so small it does not matter.
>>
>> My IQ is more than two standard deviations above the mean
>> when we assume that a standard deviation is 15.
> 
> Which assumption might be incorrect. Usually IQ tests are normalized so
> that their standard deviation is 16 but sometines a different normalization
> is used. 

Yes and at a standard deviation of 16 my 132 IQ just barely
flunked Mensa by a tiny fraction of a percent top 2.28%

> Mensa does not specify any IQ value as acceptance limit but having
> a higher IQ than 98% of population.
> 

Yes I know this. They gave me two tests and I scored above
140 on one of them and still only got top 3%.

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