Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!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 --- correct emulation
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 09:17:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <vetqlb$3b8r2$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vegfro$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>
 <921b15de6805fedfee61deb254f2f9f93cd3b6c9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:17:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="038c6a2fd0ca42e5af4fa5df3c3c0f47";
	logging-data="3515234"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19tohvl0ezIdhbBEUI5zfUD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qbYr5+M/kCIq5ev4xM7JaybjwX8=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241018-4, 10/18/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <921b15de6805fedfee61deb254f2f9f93cd3b6c9@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5439

On 10/18/2024 3:25 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 16 Oct 2024 19:55:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 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.
>> You are responding to something that I did not say.
> Did you say that HHH does not determine the behaviour of DDD?
> 
>> HHH correctly emulates N steps of DDD therefore N steps of DDD are
>> correctly emulated by HHH.
> Yes, and the rest are not simulated at all, not even incorrectly.
> 

My recent response to Richard explains this all in great
depth. No sense repeating it here. I spent 1.5 hours on
writing and rewriting this reply to Richard several times.

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