Path: ...!news.misty.com!3.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
Subject: Re: This function proves that only the outermost HHH examines the
 execution trace
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 12:37:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <v8dspd$1mg72$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v80h07$2su8m$3@dont-email.me>
 <0amdndFJSZSzYD77nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v8102f$2vo8u$1@dont-email.me> <v83fhe$3gihn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v83hmk$3gvj7$1@dont-email.me> <v83jc9$3gihm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v83juc$3ham9$1@dont-email.me> <v8519e$3s7bv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v88h9e$i7kl$7@dont-email.me> <v8a31r$u7n5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8btl5$184u7$3@dont-email.me> <v8cval$1hf7s$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:37:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d6c56e3cc0e766a5f243fbbf3db0d44a";
	logging-data="1786082"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18xahAL8C49P6U0ychcGDL7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:my0Si7ly9hdhrO79cFO4NmSaiZs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8cval$1hf7s$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3677

On 7/31/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-30 23:40:21 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/30/2024 2:00 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-29 16:50:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-27 20:05:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> If you had sufficient understanding of the x86 language
>>>>>> you would know that DDD is correctly emulated by HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you had suffient understanding of x86 language and correctness
>>>>> you would know that DDD is incorrectly emnulated by HHH.
>>>>
>>>> This is only seems that way because every reviewer makes sure
>>>> to ignore one aspect of the basis of another.
>>>
>>> It is perfectly OK to ignore irrelevant details. A relevant detail
>>> is the meaning of the word "emulate" as that determines what is a
>>> correct emulation and what is not.
>>
>> *It is not OK to ignore*
>>
>> This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers:
>> <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>
>>
>> for DDD correctly emulated by HHH until...
> 
> It is as Sipser does not say whether DDD is correctly simulated by HHH
> or what would constitute a correct simulation.
> 
> What is relevant is that the emolator program in HHH contains details
> that are not specified by the x86 language.
> 

It seems that every time I completely prove my point you
change the subject to another point that I have already
completely proven.

This would seem to prove that either you have brain damage
or are a liar. If it is that you have brain damage then
we must stick to one single point at a time until that point
is fully resolved.

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