| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v64to4$2egej$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant? Liar Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 20:26:28 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 99 Message-ID: <v64to4$2egej$1@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> <dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org> <v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me> <d593179ccad2eef1e84ab6eeddb0f255b2b386e5@i2pn2.org> <v63ml8$27f1a$2@dont-email.me> <1f93b46b7624427c02acebc57460bf5364a0bada@i2pn2.org> <v64r25$2e7d4$2@dont-email.me> <1f019b9b9aa0948c049e3351a0970975d83e8bbb@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 03:26:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ec8ab09a9c087279b96ae2505557d8c"; logging-data="2572755"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SDdQgsF8PKYxshyeFTYQa" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:H7Lj/a/SQgBhExd4TYPdTcEbCHo= In-Reply-To: <1f019b9b9aa0948c049e3351a0970975d83e8bbb@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5357 On 7/3/2024 8:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/3/24 8:40 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/3/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 7/3/24 10:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/3/2024 9:11 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 22:55:12 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist which calls >>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>> emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted (which may be >>>>>>>> never). >>>>>>> Whatever HHH does, it does not run forever but aborts. >>>>>>> >>>>>> HHH halts on input DDD. >>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt. >>>>> WTF? It only calls HHH, which you just said halts. >>>>> >>>> >>>> An aborted simulation does not count as halting. >>> >>> And doesn't show non-halting either. >>> >>>> Reaching it own machine address 00002183 counts as halting. >>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly do that. >>> >>> But HHH doesn't DO a "Correct Simulation" that can show that, it only >>> does a PARTIAL simulation. >>> >> >> <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> >> >> until H correctly determines >> until H correctly determines >> until H correctly determines >> until H correctly determines >> until H correctly determines >> until H correctly determines >> until H correctly determines > > Which it doesn't. > >> >> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT >> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT >> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT >> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT >> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT >> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT >> THUS STIPULATING THAT A PARTIAL SIMULATION IS CORRECT >> > > Nope, just double talk. > > H never CORRECTLY determined that a CORRECT SIMULATION (which means one > that matchs the behavior of the machine represented by the input) would > never halt, sinc ehta tmachine halts. > _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] OK so it is not your ADD you continue to insist that you can disagree with the x86 language that conclusively proves that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly get past machine instruction 0000217a. When you say that it must be a complete simulation I have proved that aspect is a lie. You have know it was a lie all of the hundreds of times that you said it. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer