Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- key error
 in all the proofs --- Mike
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 23:10:18 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a30a6e85a930898cac3f6d2c2ff9a6f2da74ea0c@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me>
	<49e9799be11c5e626bc05a421227bb7563982f0d@i2pn2.org>
	<v98uf7$vepo$1@dont-email.me>
	<60f1a533219c1237071f358999228eb48727f5e9@i2pn2.org>
	<v991tu$vepo$2@dont-email.me>
	<895f5e9b934bbfb72925fb109043500d49100a6a@i2pn2.org>
	<v994vs$10cfm$1@dont-email.me>
	<dec62801011bc5bf0b9eb9a62c607cf407198609@i2pn2.org>
	<v99870$14mlk$1@dont-email.me>
	<0f8f134fe961ee00910cce1d7f05b632d7567c6c@i2pn2.org>
	<v9abfu$2nabt$1@dont-email.me>
	<86c21e8a63450bf8b0c32f4f17ba0b503a914fe0@i2pn2.org>
	<v9d01i$39tbd$2@dont-email.me>
	<2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org>
	<v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me>
	<e614d6b981fd5fa6eefc84894a14448d4663e3c7@i2pn2.org>
	<v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me>
	<64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
	<v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me>
	<b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org>
	<v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me>
	<d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org>
	<v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 23:10:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2363179"; 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: 3765
Lines: 38

Am Mon, 12 Aug 2024 13:25:23 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/12/2024 1:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/12/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/12/2024 12:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> YOU don't understand the rules of the x86 code, or don't care if you
>>>> are wrong, as NOTHING in the x86 language allows the leaving of the
>>>> direct exectuion thread and into showing the code the simulator being
>>>> simulated is simulating. The ONLY correct answer is showing it doing
>>>> the simulating.
>>>>
>>> I showed the first four lines of this code highlighted in red and you
>>> ignored it. https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>> 
>> No, you ignored my comments.
>> First, that isn't a trace generated by HHH emulating DDD, but by x86UTM
>> emulating HHH, so your claim is just a type error.
>> Then when I look at this emulation, we see that HHH *ONLY* emulates
>> those first 4 instructions of HHH and no more,
> That is counter factual.
It doesn't simulate the following call.

>> that it doesn't simulate what happens in HHH after the jmp 000015e7
>> instruction, and thus you claim is still a LIE.
> That is counter factual.
Where does it jump to?

>> It says that you have HHH simulate the first *8* instructions of the
>> program DDD, and then stop doing a correct x86 emulation, and switches
>> to an INCORRECT functional emulation, since it doesn't note that this
>> emulation is CONDITIONAL.
>> 
>>>> I HAVE pointed out the exact point you "correct emulation" deviates
>>>> from the x86 requirments, > and you only answer seems to be that the
>>>> x86 model of simulation gets too long. In other words, you logic
>>>> system allows people to just LIE if they want to.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.