Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- strawman deception
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:33:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <17b9fcddb4a1dc77ed7da3d6414fe0aee24bff15@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7led6$kacj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lsg5$luh0$5@dont-email.me> <v7nm9m$1433k$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ofe7$17h8r$6@dont-email.me> <v7qfu0$1m6vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7r040$1onhe$3@dont-email.me> <v7vlbj$2ofet$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80a2u$2rabc$4@dont-email.me> <v825jo$39i9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bmao$16ibk$4@dont-email.me> <v8fggl$230t0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8fus0$25l0a$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 23:33:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1146413"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8fus0$25l0a$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3819
Lines: 57

On 8/1/24 8:25 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/1/2024 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-30 21:35:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 7/27/2024 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-26 13:58:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/26/2024 3:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-24 13:38:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is off topic. I am only referring to  a sequence of
>>>>>>> 1 to N x86 machine language instructions simulated according
>>>>>>> to the x86 semantic meaning of these instructions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't. Abortion of simulation is a deviation form x86 macine
>>>>>> language semantics. What I ask about does not deviate more.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words you are saying that it is absolutely impossible
>>>>> to make an x86 program that is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>>> emulates a finite number of instructions of non-terminating
>>>>> input x86 machine code.
>>>>
>>>> You are lying again. That is not the same in other words, and I am
>>>> not saying what you falsely claim.
>>>>
>>>> If a simulator correctly simulates a finite number of instructions
>>>> where x86 program specifies an execution of an infinite number of
>>>> instructions then the simulation deviates from x86 semantics at the
>>>> point where the simulation stops but the x86 semantics specify
>>>> countinuation.
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>      If simulating halt decider *H correctly simulates its input D*
>>>      *until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never*
>>>      *stop running unless aborted* then
>>>
>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>
>>> Since you knew that all along I can't take your reply above as
>>> anything but a strawman deception attempt at rebuttal.
>>
>> That you cannot take my reply as what it is does not make my
>> reply anything other than what it is.
>>
>> However, you should note that Sipser's agreement is not published in
>> a respectable publication you cannot use it in a publishable article.
>> Instead, you may quote what he has actually published.
>>
> 
> He gave me permission to quote him.
> Several people noted that it is is a freaking tautology.
> 

Which you change into a falsehood by redefining the words, proving 
yourself to be a LIAR.