Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser
 agreed to are exactly met
Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 14:10:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <100qh7g$7bjs$5@dont-email.me>
References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me>
 <c5c825970bebea6bd8bfde7077f7ffc5ba0c30f5@i2pn2.org>
 <100dedr$15dil$3@dont-email.me>
 <771e0f3f36c9914146f675bc9e2c1c0e7903c116@i2pn2.org>
 <100dfc8$15qbo$1@dont-email.me>
 <35c9fb020e868823c3e46c006d9ac4698eaf4f82@i2pn2.org>
 <100dl6g$16vdn$1@dont-email.me>
 <f02a2fb26f6e1dedd29638f9b42befaab4781f17@i2pn2.org>
 <100dst7$18epo$1@dont-email.me> <100f18f$1iree$1@dont-email.me>
 <100gvv6$22oen$2@dont-email.me> <100h9le$24iha$1@dont-email.me>
 <100i43k$292ko$2@dont-email.me> <100k1si$2o9h6$1@dont-email.me>
 <100kro3$2tae8$1@dont-email.me> <100mmkl$3cdk8$1@dont-email.me>
 <100o8s8$3md6k$3@dont-email.me> <100p662$3vgfi$1@dont-email.me>
 <100q7fq$5buc$6@dont-email.me> <100qcf2$6j1f$1@dont-email.me>
 <100qcnr$6h70$1@dont-email.me> <100qes2$6j1g$1@dont-email.me>
 <100qf8b$7bjs$1@dont-email.me> <100qfrv$6j1f$5@dont-email.me>
 <100qg3c$7bjs$4@dont-email.me> <100qgka$6j1f$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 21:10:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4606f99203c21d5702beb16569e2a0e8";
	logging-data="241276"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18D+RSUIc/5Phefb/7nJtPV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Gt3wnvF71SAJAahoW8jELlaLSX0=
In-Reply-To: <100qgka$6j1f$8@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250523-4, 5/23/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7080

On 5/23/2025 2:00 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 23.mei.2025 om 20:51 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/23/2025 1:47 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 23.mei.2025 om 20:36 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 5/23/2025 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 23.mei.2025 om 19:54 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 5/23/2025 12:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 23.mei.2025 om 18:24 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 5/23/2025 1:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-22 22:35:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-21 15:33:23 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/21/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-20 14:37:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/20/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-20 04:20:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that we are only evaluating whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not HHH/DDD meets this above criteria?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do understand that the meaning of the behaviour is not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the creteria and is therefore irrelevant, an obvious 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consequence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of which is that your "WRONG!" above is false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *H correctly simulates its input D until*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies that HHH must simulate DDD according
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the meaning of the rules of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The words Sipser agreed to do not refer to that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is irrelevant to the fact that the meaning of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour, if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is any, isn't referred there, either.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure they do. There is only a single measure of
>>>>>>>>>>>> *H correctly simulates its input D*
>>>>>>>>>>>> When the language of D is the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, they do not. Sipser said nothing about any specific 
>>>>>>>>>>> language. That
>>>>>>>>>>> you may apply his words to a specific language does not mean 
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser referred to that language.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D*
>>>>>>>>>> What is the criterion measure of a correct simulation?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>>>>>>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>>>>>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The damned liars here are trying to get away with
>>>>>>>>>> a correct simulation of DDD interprets: "push ebp"
>>>>>>>>>> to mean "jmp 000021a3"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A straw man fallcy is a lie, so you are lying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am paraphrasing.
>>>>>>>> They stupidly expect that DDD emulated by HHH must
>>>>>>>> have the same behavior as DDD emulated by HHH1.
>>>>>>>> The ONLY way to do that is for HHH to emulate
>>>>>>>> DDD AGAINST THE RULES OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it is against the rules of the X86 language it is stupid 
>>>>>>> to expect that one correct simulation differs from another 
>>>>>>> correct simulation. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may seem this way to people lacking
>>>>>> the capacity to pay complete attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I dared people to show the exact mistake of
>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH and the best
>>>>>> that they had was counter-factual statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you failed, 
>>>>
>>>> *It is not my failure dip-shit*
>>>
>>> It is.
>>>
>>>> *I dared you to show a correct simulation*
>>>> *of DDD by HHH where the simulated DDD reaches*
>>>> *its own "ret" instruction*
>>>
>>> And I told you that such a HHH does not exists. 
>>
>> Do you know that when DDD emulated by HHH cannot reach
>> its own "ret" instruction (final halt state)
>> that this means that DDD emulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT?
>>
> 
> No, it means that the simulation halted and failed before it could reach 
> the 'ret' instruction. 

You won't show the detailed steps of how
this would work because you know that you
are a damned liar.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer