Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ?
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 18:04:18 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <v63sq3$28goi$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <7b6a00827bfcc84e99e19a0d0ae6028ebcdc263c@i2pn2.org>
 <v620vu$1qutj$2@dont-email.me>
 <f6e8f5de9a1e61c7970a92145ce8c1f9087ba431@i2pn2.org>
 <v628ts$1s632$1@dont-email.me>
 <178edf6a7c5329df35a9af6852ecbd41c0948ea1@i2pn2.org>
 <v629mp$1s632$3@dont-email.me>
 <168858894febbaa529d1704ea864bbe15cb8f635@i2pn2.org>
 <v62bgv$1s632$6@dont-email.me>
 <211a07c98d1fc183ed3e6c079ec1e883dd45f1cc@i2pn2.org>
 <v62f92$20moo$3@dont-email.me>
 <623debd817e63a256100bb15fed3af8d4fb969fe@i2pn2.org>
 <v62hc7$20moo$6@dont-email.me>
 <e3c734b6a1ce3386210f7700bf03d183334d4d55@i2pn2.org>
 <v63jkc$26loi$7@dont-email.me>
 <0600a243a3bb843ec505712dc7746d41e0ca66dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v63n8u$27f1a$3@dont-email.me> <v63rd7$24jon$1@dont-email.me>
 <v63s2c$28dpi$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 18:04:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6d34e4518a0045f34950758630129c85";
	logging-data="2376466"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QRuTcf7g0Sxa1zPlBvv+x"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8ky45Z3WlXtVaK89PHX1CJgbHYk=
In-Reply-To: <v63s2c$28dpi$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 6002

Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott:
> On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to
>>>>>>>>>> the final end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are
>>>>>>>>> false?
>>>>>>>> And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately 
>>>>>>>> loop
>>>>>>>> in the emulation.
>>>>>>> Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.
>>>>>> Why do they get to lie?
>>>> Open question.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial
>>>>>>>> emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself a
>>>>>>>> fully correct emulator.
>>>>>>> You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is an
>>>>>>> incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?
>>>>>> Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and 
>>>>>> truth is
>>>>>> the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
>>>>>> BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you keep lying about this?
>>>>> As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.
>>>> If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag
>>>> or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition. <-
>>>> Which it therefore isn’t.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>> *This is the repeating state*
>>
>> But not an *infinitely* repeating state. 
> 
> The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling
> author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing
> about *infinitely* repeating state.

Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your simulation 
is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here.
Sorry, you wasted two years, where a beginner could have corrected you.

> 
> If you would quit trying to form rebuttals by deceptively
> twisting my words you would have to agree that I am correct.

No, you are twisting Sipser's words, which were in the context of a 
correct simulation. Your simulation is not correct.

> 
> <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>
> 

You are running in circles. So, you will not proceed. Think a little bit 
about it.