Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's
 10/2022 analysis
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:34:26 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3vcqi$3a78f$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
	<J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
	<v3l7uo$13cp$8@dont-email.me> <v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me>
	<v3mq9j$chc3$1@dont-email.me> <v3mrli$chc4$1@dont-email.me>
	<_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<v3nkqr$h7f9$3@dont-email.me> <v3p4ka$sk6h$1@dont-email.me>
	<v3pp7p$v133$8@dont-email.me> <v3s27e$1f9kd$1@dont-email.me>
	<v3sf1n$1gra7$11@dont-email.me> <v3sjo9$1ialb$1@dont-email.me>
	<v3skoo$1iedv$1@dont-email.me> <v3u9ej$1v7rn$1@dont-email.me>
	<v3v6i7$23l33$1@dont-email.me> <v3v70o$21qlc$3@dont-email.me>
	<v3v7j8$242e9$2@dont-email.me> <v3v7qh$21qlc$4@dont-email.me>
	<v3v8f9$242e9$3@dont-email.me> <v3v96e$39q1p$4@i2pn2.org>
	<v3v9ll$242e9$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 16:34:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3480847"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3339
Lines: 33

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 10:40:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/7/2024 10:32 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 10:20:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/7/2024 10:09 AM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 07/06/2024 à 17:05, olcott a écrit :
>>>>> On 6/7/2024 9:55 AM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Le 07/06/2024 à 16:47, olcott a écrit :

>>>>>>> The issue here is that I proved that DD correctly simulated by HH
>>>>>>> has different behavior than the directly executed DD(DD) and
>>>>>>> everyone's "rebuttal" to this proof is to simply ignore it.
>>>>> When you actually try to form a rebuttal of the above you will see
>>>>> that I am correct. So far everyone simply ignores the proof that I
>>>>> am correct as their only rebuttal.
>>> A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the above x86
>>> machine language of DD is correctly simulated by HH and simulated in
>>> the correct order.
>> And to the end. Thus it can't behave differently than direct execution.
> You must not be very good at programming if you believe that
> Infinite_Recursion must be simulated "to the end"
As I said before, if there is no end the simulation can't end either.

>>> Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the directly
>>> executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above definition of
>>> correct simulation.
>> But those are the same. How does simulating something change it?
> It seems to boil down to you just don't know enough about programming
> otherwise it would occur to you that there cannot possibly exist any
> correct rebuttal to the following:
Answer the question. Why should the simulation differ from direct
execution?

-- 
joes