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: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 06:30:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <vf0592$3rr97$3@dont-email.me>
References: <ves6p1$2uoln$1@dont-email.me>
 <3232d8a0cc7b5d4bba46321bf682c94573bf1b7c@i2pn2.org>
 <vesemu$2v7sh$1@dont-email.me>
 <a9fb95eb0ed914d0d9775448c005111eb43f2c5b@i2pn2.org>
 <veslpf$34ogr$1@dont-email.me>
 <647fe917c6bc0cfc78083ccf927fe280acdf2f9d@i2pn2.org>
 <vetq7u$3b8r2$1@dont-email.me>
 <d8006439ae02f55ba148e6be1f8c4787905a999f@i2pn2.org>
 <veu30q$3cqfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <19353b51a56711156d467a25959b94b51976802e@i2pn2.org>
 <vev0ic$3hnjq$2@dont-email.me>
 <907fa87f8679d5085795db6186840a0e892b57bb@i2pn2.org>
 <vev986$3me0u$3@dont-email.me>
 <bbd63df65b0063e5db90e806c032b8aa694a45d2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 13:30:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a2f4596ff028e636d7320aa11ac5f85c";
	logging-data="4058407"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SALSV+Mr26qAVFlpW3g6s"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:b7jRfGtlusPyVDkteu1rgABq8nE=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241019-2, 10/19/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <bbd63df65b0063e5db90e806c032b8aa694a45d2@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 7252

On 10/19/2024 6:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/18/24 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/18/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/18/24 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/2024 6:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/18/24 12:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/18/2024 9:41 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 09:10:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2024 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/17/24 7:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +-->[00002172]-->[00002173]-->[00002175]-->[0000217a]--+
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that 0000217a doesn't go to 00002172, but to 000015d2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Emulating HHH sees those addresses at its begining and then 
>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>> Then the HHH that it is emulating will see those addresses, but 
>>>>>>>>> not the
>>>>>>>>> outer one that is doing that emulation of HHH.
>>>>>>>>> And so on.
>>>>>>>>> Which HHH do you think EVER gets back to 00002172?
>>>>>>>>> What instruction do you think that it emulates that would tell 
>>>>>>>>> it to do
>>>>>>>>> so?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At best the trace is:
>>>>>>>>> 00002172 00002173 00002175 0000217a conditional emulation of 
>>>>>>>>> 00002172
>>>>>>>>> conditional emulation of 00002173 conditional emulation of 
>>>>>>>>> 00002175
>>>>>>>>> conditional emulation of 0000217a CE of CE of 00002172 ...
>>>>>>>> OK great this is finally good progress.
>>>>>>> The more interesting part is HHH simulating itself, specifically the
>>>>>>> if(Root) check on line 502.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That has nothing to do with any aspect of the emulation
>>>>>> until HHH has correctly emulated itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and if HHH decides to abort its emulation, it also should know 
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> every level of condition emulation it say will also do the same 
>>>>>>>>> thing,
>>>>>>>> If I understand his words correctly Mike has already disagreed with
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>> He hasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>   > Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state (tape 
>>>>>>>> contents
>>>>>>>>   > etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there.
>>>>>>>> This seems to indicate that the Turing machine UTM version of 
>>>>>>>> HHH can
>>>>>>>> somehow see each of the state transitions of the DDD resulting from
>>>>>>>> emulating its own Turing machine description emulating DDD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course. It needs to, in order to simulate it. Strictly speaking
>>>>>>> it has no idea of its simulation of a simulation two levels down,
>>>>>>> only of the immediate simulation; the rest is just part of whatever
>>>>>>> program the simulated simulator is simulating, which happens to be
>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  From the concrete execution trace of DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language people with
>>>>>> sufficient technical competence can see that the halt status
>>>>>> criteria that professor Sipser agreed to has been met.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Proven previously and you accepted by default by not pointing out 
>>>>> an error.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your HHH neither "correctly simulated" per his definitions or 
>>>>> correctly predicts the behavior of such a simulation, and thus 
>>>>> never acheived the required criteria.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you are still trying to stupidly get away with saying
>>>> that when a finite string of x86 code is emulated according
>>>> to the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>
>>>> (including HHH emulating itself emulating DDD)
>>>> THAT THE EMULATION CAN BE WRONG ???
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is WRONG for the determination of the final behavior of DDD it is 
>>> aborted.
>>>
>>> Remember, the "semantics of the x86 processor" includes the fact that 
>>> the x86 processor WON'T STOP until it reaches a terminal instruction, 
>>> and thus stopping before that isn't actually correct.
>>>
>>> If you are willing to admit partial behavior, it can be correct, but 
>>> saying it will "never" do something, is unsupported.
>>
>> https://chatgpt.com/share/6709e046-4794-8011-98b7-27066fb49f3e
>> Fully understands that HHH does correctly predict the behavior
>> of DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>
>> Try and post its response to your argument against this.
>> It will be just like the reason why Trump doesn't want
>> any more debates or interviews.
>>
>> ChatGPT will make a fool of any rebuttal that you make of my work.
>>
>>
> 
> Because you have LIED to it, and AI is too stupid to catch that, because 
> it has been programmed to try to agree with what it has been told.

If anything that I said to it was untrue then
you could find a way to convince ChatGPT that
it is untrue. You don't try because you know
that I am correct.

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