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 --- correct emulation
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:55:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <vepn9n$2f3g0$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vegfro$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>
 <61ffc8131435005aaf8976ddbf109b8f16c77668@i2pn2.org>
 <ven83o$2230b$1@dont-email.me>
 <a20cf5f40db4e9e4e5023a48d13e220443c4dea7@i2pn2.org>
 <vepli3$2f3g0$2@dont-email.me>
 <0975f9e6532bcbcb01481c57539fcd45e6b2ff8b@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 02:55:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3be8f25ba68f32da41cba57b2c08635d";
	logging-data="2592256"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19WhtNtPeJXSlBbu1XVFpt3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:E7Rl7huSihSECzjhNKDGiZNGInE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <0975f9e6532bcbcb01481c57539fcd45e6b2ff8b@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4996

On 10/16/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/16/24 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/15/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/15/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 2:33 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:11:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/24 11:18 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 7:06 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 14 Oct 2024 04:49:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2024 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-13 12:53:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>> share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e When
>>>>>>>>>>>> you click on the link and try to explain how HHH must be 
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong when
>>>>>>>>>>>> it reports that DDD does not terminate because DDD does 
>>>>>>>>>>>> terminate it
>>>>>>>>>>>> will explain your mistake to you.
>>>>>>>>>>> I did that, and it admitted that DDD halts, it just tries to 
>>>>>>>>>>> justify
>>>>>>>>>>> why a wrong answer must be right.
>>>>>>>>>> It explains in great detail that another different DDD (same 
>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>> code different process context) seems to terminate only 
>>>>>>>>>> because the
>>>>>>>>>> recursive emulation that it specifies has been aborted at its 
>>>>>>>>>> second
>>>>>>>>>> recursive call.
>>>>>>>>> Yes! It really has different code, by way of the static Root 
>>>>>>>>> variable.
>>>>>>>>> No wonder it behaves differently.
>>>>>>>> There are no static root variables. There never has been any 
>>>>>>>> "not a pure
>>>>>>>> function of its inputs" aspect to emulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, did you take out the check if HHH is the root simulator?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is some code that was obsolete several years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that code is still active. it is the source of the value for 
>>>>> the variable Root that is passed around, and is checked in the code 
>>>>> to alter the behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has no effect on the trace itself.
>>>
>>> Yes it does.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> Nope, not to a degree that determine the final behavior of the input.
> 

This is your ADD. You are responding to something that I did not say.
Like I said that I do, try rereading the above paragraph sixteen times.

I will dumb it down for you so you can get the gist of it.
HHH correctly emulates N steps of DDD therefore N steps of
DDD are correctly emulated by HHH.


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