Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 12:50:52 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <v58r5s$9j01$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v56n8h$3pr25$1@dont-email.me> <v56ntj$onl3$7@i2pn2.org> <v56ps2$3q4ea$1@dont-email.me> <v56sk3$p1du$2@i2pn2.org> <v56tfv$3ql1v$2@dont-email.me> <v570n5$onl4$11@i2pn2.org> <v571lc$3rrgk$1@dont-email.me> <v57603$onl3$12@i2pn2.org> <v576cg$3soh6$2@dont-email.me> <v576nv$onl3$14@i2pn2.org> <v5775h$3soh6$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 11:50:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="890da45bc618ab4dcbe3f8f2c87d41b7";
	logging-data="314369"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qiDxggZN9hjAEvonsdjHT"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WML9jQPriPTLo3yeJqKYS60qKRY=
Bytes: 3579

On 2024-06-22 19:03:13 +0000, olcott said:

> On 6/22/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/22/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/22/2024 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/22/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/22/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH0(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The input to HHH0(DDD) includes itself.
>>>>>>> The input to HHH1(DDD) DOES NOT include itself.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is stipulated that correct emulation is defined by the
>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language and nothing else.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And thus, your emulation traces show that your "Simulating Halt 
>>>>>> Deciders" do not do a "Correct Simulation"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apparently your ADD preventing you from paying close attention
>>>>> to ALL of my words.
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Function names adapted to correspond to my updated paper*
>>>>> 
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    H0(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>> 
>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>> 
>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>> 
>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>> 
>>>>> *When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
>>>>> *emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>>>>> 
>>>>> then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that
>>>>> its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly return.
>>>> 
>>>> Since your H0 has never demonstrated that is actually DOES the correct 
>>>> simulation per your stipulation,
>>> 
>>> Liar
>>> 
>> 
>> Then where is it?
>> 
> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that
> when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD)
> cannot possibly return.

Semantics of the x86 programming language does not specifiy emulation
or correctness of emulation.

-- 
Mikko