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: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:38:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5vp75$1oana$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5pbjf$55h$1@dont-email.me> <v5r5q9$ekvf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5s40h$jvgt$1@dont-email.me> <v5sbpt$1kfbr$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sjsa$msl0$1@dont-email.me> <v5skc9$1kfbr$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v5smuk$n7a2$1@dont-email.me> <v5sorr$1kfbr$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sp4v$nnko$1@dont-email.me> <v5sr4t$1kfbq$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5srjn$o1o0$1@dont-email.me> <v5ssaq$1kfbq$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5st66$o7ss$1@dont-email.me> <v5su4q$1kfbr$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v5sv8o$ogo5$1@dont-email.me> <v5t0h8$1kfbr$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v5t1af$omq9$1@dont-email.me> <v5t3h4$1kfbr$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v5t470$t0hj$1@dont-email.me> <v5u2o5$1mj7k$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5u8li$12udb$3@dont-email.me> <v5ujm6$1na1q$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5ujvn$1550s$1@dont-email.me> <v5vi6d$1oanb$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v5vlro$1b0k9$5@dont-email.me> <v5vmkh$1oana$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5vo12$1f17p$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 02:38:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1845994"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v5vo12$1f17p$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6182
Lines: 125

On 7/1/24 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/1/2024 8:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/1/24 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/24 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/1/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:49:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH at machine 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> address
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0000217a cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO
>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINED.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD is  emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to
>>>>>>>>>>> repeat the process until aborted.
>>>>>>>>>> And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it 
>>>>>>>>>> WILL
>>>>>>>>>> return to DDD and it will return also.
>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but 
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> the behavior of the input.
>>>>>>> When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior stops. 
>>>>>>> DDD is
>>>>>>> the input.
>>>>>> Again: emulating does not change what the input does of its own. 
>>>>>> Aborting
>>>>>> an emulation is premature, as the input does not contain an abort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The title of this post is a lie*
>>>>> *The title of this post is a lie*
>>>>> *The title of this post is a lie*
>>>>
>>>> Nope, it is the TRUTH.
>>>>
>>>> OLCOTT is the one lying.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    Infinite_Recursion();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Loop);
>>>>>    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> *Each one of these cases meets this criteria*
>>>>>
>>>>> <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>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right. and since the definition of a "Correct Simulation" that 
>>>> Professor Sipser would use (as with most of the world) is one that 
>>>> recreates the full behavior of the program represented by the input, 
>>>
>>> No Professor Sipser would agree to this:
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>
>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why do you say that?
>>
> 
> Because he already knows the truth of it.
> Now that I am getting closer to death I may contact him again.
> I have to perfect my new paper before doing this.
> 
> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input P*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P
> 


In other words, your logic presumes that it knows better than the person 
who spoke what he means.,

Just shows you are a DAMNED LIAR.

You may be unplesantly surprized at his answer, or maybe he will just 
lay a bigger trap for you and let you just totally embarass yourself 
with your paper.