Path: ...!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 15:06:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <vep6b9$2cmbh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vegfro$lk27$9@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vep10l$2brl4$1@dont-email.me>
 <8cb59c1760f051701155070c17b7828ef660aaad@i2pn2.org>
 <vep2fe$2brl4$3@dont-email.me>
 <1d42fdf05bce4ae265def55ab146459a6a15e78b@i2pn2.org>
 <vep4pp$2cb88$1@dont-email.me>
 <92373359ad257199f3190fc4ecf935bbc4d3017a@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 22:06:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f097d53e4abea8ea9babea4b430282e3";
	logging-data="2513265"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/AltZMRX+Rf83GsN8rHCsr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AqVy8xXZzr4m0rsweaWvOswT3e8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <92373359ad257199f3190fc4ecf935bbc4d3017a@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5030

On 10/16/2024 3:02 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:39:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 10/16/2024 2:33 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:59:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 10/16/2024 1:47 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:35:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> In practice you programmed H impurely.
>>>> Which totally does not matter to the slightest degree when you have
>>>> the discipline to stay within the precisely designated scope of the
>>>> exact words that I am saying.
>>>> When HHH is an x86 emulation based termination analyzer then each DDD
>>>> *correctly_emulated_by* any HHH that it calls cannot possibly return
>>>> no matter what this HHH does.
>>> Exactly, because your nested HHHs do not abort.
>> In other words you continue to fail to understand that unless the first
>> one aborts then none of them can possibly abort because they all have
>> the exact same code.

> Then HHH should report itself as halting, when they would all abort.
> 

They would not all abort when you pay close attention
to ALL of the details. It is utterly impossible for
any of them besides the outermost one to abort because
it aborts before any of the rest of them see their
abort criteria has been met.

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