Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 11:54:05 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 85
Message-ID: <v8kr7d$3cieo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@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> <v8i4g9$2ncq1$1@dont-email.me> <v8ifmb$2pju7$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 10:54:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ce1f660d5b933898b9682f44d438fae2";
	logging-data="3557848"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18unaC4WLjlzjt8cixsCe0y"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MY2yn7rmsqIKUvtLoqdT7WeE/Q4=
Bytes: 5505

On 2024-08-02 11:24:59 +0000, olcott said:

> On 8/2/2024 3:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> THAT IS WRONG. IT IS MAKING SURE TO SKIP ALL THE STEPS AFTER
> 
> H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> stop running unless aborted
> 
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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 are a damned liar about how correct emulation is defined.

Emulation (of a program) is defined as execution of a program without the
execution environment the program is made for. (The environment the program
is made for is called "target environment" and whatever is used instead is
called an "emulator".) Correct emulaton simply means that emulation does the
same as the execution in the target environment. This follows from the usual
meaning of "correct" so "correct emulation" needn't be defined.

-- 
Mikko