Path: ...!news.mixmin.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 --- correct emulation
 --- CORRECTION
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:07:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <vercoq$2qhve$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vegfro$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>
 <vepn9n$2f3g0$4@dont-email.me>
 <1824607a6c6cab233d26fd6400e6d1a64df027a8@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 18:07:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3be8f25ba68f32da41cba57b2c08635d";
	logging-data="2967534"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ON6ZUWJnF4yVREJgHlK9A"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:44xnCV4+feXdZey2mihyQhav2lI=
In-Reply-To: <1824607a6c6cab233d26fd6400e6d1a64df027a8@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6027

On 10/17/2024 6:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/16/24 8:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> Right, but just because N steps don't get to the return, doesn't mean 
> that the input doesn't return.
> 

This is just over your head.

_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according
to the semantics of the x86 language DDD cannot
possibly reach its own machine address [00002183]
no matter what HHH does.


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