Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 10:13:59 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <v8i4g9$2ncq1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7qfu0$1m6vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7r040$1onhe$3@dont-email.me> <v7vlbj$2ofet$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80a2u$2rabc$4@dont-email.me> <v825jo$39i9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82u9d$3dftr$3@dont-email.me> <v8306v$3c7$1@news.muc.de>
 <v83161$3dftr$11@dont-email.me> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bc6j$159av$1@dont-email.me>
 <ea673a5b4ed43fbddf938c69bd013b0cf2ca325d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8c6kb$1de3l$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f3112e056ad6eebf35f940c34b802b46addcad4@i2pn2.org>
 <v8cde0$1ecgo$1@dont-email.me> <v8ctgt$1gbu7$4@dont-email.me>
 <v8dkc3$1kii7$3@dont-email.me> <v8e55v$1nrnh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8e9vu$1oqd7$1@dont-email.me> <v8fftq$22ege$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8fuj5$24rl1$10@dont-email.me> <v8g1j7$24u77$6@dont-email.me>
 <v8g2jl$26d7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8g5oq$26s53$5@dont-email.me>
 <v8g658$276fl$1@dont-email.me>
 <9d2f2d8a1bf9614b9d8ab56bd500a78075b365e4@i2pn2.org>
 <v8gdan$288f9$2@dont-email.me> <v8gnoo$2bb0i$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8gt6v$2coqq$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 10:14:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4b8fd36ada0af86d62d52d54966e539e";
	logging-data="2863937"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18jNFB374f5uWOxYH39PULd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gqqyV+zF98jrfMy2xzPfh6Il9xU=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v8gt6v$2coqq$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5124

Op 01.aug.2024 om 23:03 schreef olcott:
> On 8/1/2024 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 18:32 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/1/2024 11:11 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 01 Aug 2024 09:30:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 8/1/2024 9:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 15:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/1/2024 8:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 14:20 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/1/2024 3:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 23:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 06:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> The trace stops and hides what happens when 000015d2 is called.
>>>>>>>> Olcott is hiding the conditional branch instructions in the
>>>>>>>> recursion.
>>>>>>> These next lines conclusively prove that DDD is being correctly
>>>>>>> emulated by HHH after DDD calls HHH(DDD).
>>>>>> It also shows that HHH when simulating itself, does not reach the end
>>>>>> of its own simulation.
>>>>> If you weren't a clueless wonder you would understand that DDD 
>>>>> correctly
>>>>> emulated by HHH including HHH emulating itself emulated DDD has no end
>>>>> of correct emulation.
>>>
>>>> It does if the simulated HHH aborts, but its simulating copy preempts
>>>> that. Indeed, it has no choice, but if it didn't abort, the simulation
>>>> wouldn't abort either. Therefore it can't simulate itself.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <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>
>>
>> Sipser agreed only to a correct simulation.
> 
> of N steps.

Without skipping M steps of a halting program.

> 
>>>
>>> I spent two years carefully composing the above before I even
>>> asked professor Sipser to review it.
>>>
>>> DDD is correctly emulated by HHH until HHH sees the same
>>> never ending pattern that anyone else can see.
>>
>> The never ending pattern is there only in your dreams. The HHH that 
>> halts after two cycles has a halting pattern. 
> 
> In order for DDD correctly emulated by HHH to halt
> DDD correctly emulated  must reach its emulated "ret"
> instruction. This <is> impossible.

Indeed! HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
You confirm what I have been trying to explain to you for some time now.
HHH cannot reach its own 'ret', which makes the abort premature and 
incorrect.

> 
>> Only HHH, when simulating itself, cannot see that after two cycles, 
>> because it needs one more cycle.
>> Two is not infinite.
>> Dream are no substitute for facts, not for logic.
>>
>