Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:35:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <vep10l$2brl4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vegfro$lk27$9@dont-email.me> <veimqs$14que$1@dont-email.me>
 <veipf3$15764$1@dont-email.me>
 <36ecdefcca730806c7bd9ec03e326fac1a9c8464@i2pn2.org>
 <vejcoj$1879f$1@dont-email.me>
 <034767682966b9ac642993dd2fa0d181c21dfffc@i2pn2.org>
 <vekj4q$1hrgd$1@dont-email.me>
 <f8a15594bf0623a229214e2fb62ce4f4a2bd7116@i2pn2.org>
 <velpm2$1n3gb$6@dont-email.me>
 <8f12bccec21234ec3802cdb3df63fd9566ba9b07@i2pn2.org>
 <vemc30$1q255$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b7102e401dc2d872ab53fd94fc433841caf3170@i2pn2.org>
 <vemhn0$1qqfr$2@dont-email.me>
 <bfa96cc6bd41f1351cf3c47ec5712b7fc3803f6d@i2pn2.org>
 <vemo4j$1roph$1@dont-email.me>
 <82cb937f8012d3353dde47aa2d8565883d10a92a@i2pn2.org>
 <veof7v$284qn$3@dont-email.me>
 <4b093cf3a6d52cfe4e763a81d623eb66c817cb7f@i2pn2.org>
 <veohia$29dtl$1@dont-email.me>
 <a70bf39f5d3d3ba1f34130dc60d735cc32c8f779@i2pn2.org>
 <veomn9$29dtl$3@dont-email.me>
 <b9f7bcdf67813f0f96d550b78ac6b2d25d414ee8@i2pn2.org>
 <veou4p$2baph$3@dont-email.me>
 <45e53fc60dfc649ed11a8704e5d860766dd88955@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 20:35:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f097d53e4abea8ea9babea4b430282e3";
	logging-data="2485924"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/GkeJi0iSXJCfkTaDmkzDJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8F8cl/WTurxu5GLwoZYbsEfmqls=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <45e53fc60dfc649ed11a8704e5d860766dd88955@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4086

On 10/16/2024 1:06 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:46:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 10/16/2024 12:27 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 10:39:21 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 10/16/2024 9:45 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:11:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 10/16/2024 9:01 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:31:43 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 10/16/2024 1:33 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 16:51:15 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 4:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Terminating C functions must reach their "return" statement.
>>>>>>> Which DDD does.
>>>>>> THIS IS ALSO THE INDUSTRY STANDARD DEFINITION It is stipulated that
>>>>>> *correct_x86_emulation* means that a finite string of x86
>>>>>> instructions is emulated according to the semantics of the x86
>>>>>> language beginning with the first bytes of this string.
>>>>> You are not simulating the given program, but a version that differs
>>>>> in the abort check.
>>>> HHH is correctly emulating (not simulating) the x86 language finite
>>>> string of DDD including emulating the finite string of itself
>>>> emulating the finite string of DDD up until the point where the
>>>> emulated emulated DDD would call HHH(DDD) again.
>>> Whereupon the simulated HHH would abort, if it weren't unnecessarily
>>> aborted.
>> If the first HHH to meet its abort criteria does not act on this
>> criteria then none of them do.

> And if the first one does, all of them do.
> 

In theory this seems true when ignoring or failing to
comprehend key details.

No sense going on about this. It is just over your head.

>>>>>> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each
>>>>>> DDD *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls never returns.
>>>>> It is not a correct emulation if it has a different termination
>>>>> status.


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