Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.space.net!news.muc.de!.POSTED.news.muc.de!not-for-mail
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD incorrectly simulated by HHH
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 21:26:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: muc.de e.V.
Message-ID: <v5n9ph$2i0b$1@news.muc.de>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me>   <v5f3j8$1m2fl$2@dont-email.me> <v5f54f$1lp16$3@dont-email.me> <v5f5sd$1mcif$1@dont-email.me> <v5ght9$21jrt$1@dont-email.me> <v5h3rd$24jbd$6@dont-email.me> <v5jbub$2m18t$1@dont-email.me> <v5k72o$2qsdr$4@dont-email.me> <v5lqul$386u3$1@dont-email.me> <v5mgd9$3cds2$1@dont-email.me> <v5mi5t$3cmj8$1@dont-email.me> <v5mj8m$3cibm$3@dont-email.me> <v5mobr$1d3t3$3@i2pn2.org> <v5mv5n$3f3fn$1@dont-email.me> <v5n2n4$1d3t3$11@i2pn2.org> <v5n8e9$3gt9c$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 21:26:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.muc.de; posting-host="news.muc.de:2001:608:1000::2";
	logging-data="83979"; mail-complaints-to="news-admin@muc.de"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.3-20231224 ("Banff") (FreeBSD/14.0-RELEASE-p5 (amd64))
Bytes: 3676
Lines: 54

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/2024 2:25 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:24:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/28/2024 11:28 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:01:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/28/2024 9:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 28.jun.2024 om 16:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 3:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 27.jun.2024 om 19:21 schreef olcott:

>>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated by x86
>>>>>>>>> emulator H0 cannot possibly return.
>>>>> That is counter-factual. HHH(DDD) does correctly emulate the call from
>>>>> DDD to HHH(DDD) emulating itself emulating DDD.
>> You are really immune to contradictions, are you?

>>> HHH correctly emulates DDD including emulating itself emulating DDD and
>>> sees that this proves that DDD is stuck in recursive simulation thus
>>> aborts DDD and correctly returns 0 indicating it has rejected its input
>>> according to this criterion:
>> If it were able to correctly simulate itself it would see that its
>> recursive call also aborts, and could accept DDD as halting.


> *You might just be too dumb to comprehend this*

The gratuitous insult is uncalled for.  It's quite clear that Joes
understands the matter adequately.

> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>     stop running unless aborted then

>     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

But it seems you're not clever enough to understand the above.

Professor Sipser would have agreed to these words knowing that the first
"if" clause, with its "correctly simulates" can never hold.  He would
have wanted to get you, a crank, off his back so that he could continue
uninterrupted with his work.  He surely has real students who want to
learn, to teach.  Agreeing to that vacuous truth, which wouldn't stain
his conscience, seems to have been effective.  You appear not to have
troubled Professor Sipser in over a year.

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

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).