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 --- strawman deception
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 12:42:11 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <v8ku1j$3d2n9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7led6$kacj$1@dont-email.me> <v7lsg5$luh0$5@dont-email.me> <v7nm9m$1433k$1@dont-email.me> <v7ofe7$17h8r$6@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> <v8bmao$16ibk$4@dont-email.me> <v8fggl$230t0$1@dont-email.me> <v8fus0$25l0a$2@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 11:42:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1a48d50997def039aa1d0a2731ff3c2c";
	logging-data="3574505"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/6LgASq0r2gXbiRWz+0eI2"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JZ9GiCwooMrP6iTqVlr/R3IR5wk=
Bytes: 3844

On 2024-08-01 12:25:36 +0000, olcott said:

> On 8/1/2024 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-30 21:35:20 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 7/27/2024 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-26 13:58:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 7/26/2024 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-24 13:38:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That is off topic. I am only referring to  a sequence of
>>>>>>> 1 to N x86 machine language instructions simulated according
>>>>>>> to the x86 semantic meaning of these instructions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No, it isn't. Abortion of simulation is a deviation form x86 macine
>>>>>> language semantics. What I ask about does not deviate more.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In other words you are saying that it is absolutely impossible
>>>>> to make an x86 program that is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>>> emulates a finite number of instructions of non-terminating
>>>>> input x86 machine code.
>>>> 
>>>> You are lying again. That is not the same in other words, and I am
>>>> not saying what you falsely claim.
>>>> 
>>>> If a simulator correctly simulates a finite number of instructions
>>>> where x86 program specifies an execution of an infinite number of
>>>> instructions then the simulation deviates from x86 semantics at the
>>>> point where the simulation stops but the x86 semantics specify
>>>> countinuation.
>>> 
>>> <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>
>>> 
>>> Since you knew that all along I can't take your reply above as
>>> anything but a strawman deception attempt at rebuttal.
>> 
>> That you cannot take my reply as what it is does not make my
>> reply anything other than what it is.
>> 
>> However, you should note that Sipser's agreement is not published in
>> a respectable publication you cannot use it in a publishable article.
>> Instead, you may quote what he has actually published.
> 
> He gave me permission to quote him.
> Several people noted that it is is a freaking tautology.

You may quote him as "private communication" but that kind of quote is
only a way to say him "thank you". It cannot replace a proof.

-- 
Mikko