Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 20:47:25 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 102 Message-ID: <100qfrv$6j1f$5@dont-email.me> References: <1005jsk$3akrk$1@dont-email.me> <100ctuc$121rs$1@dont-email.me> <100d5b7$13m1e$1@dont-email.me> <221167c1bbedbbda1934b12f6b2c72de2c3a1f78@i2pn2.org> <100dckr$1586e$1@dont-email.me> <100dedr$15dil$3@dont-email.me> <771e0f3f36c9914146f675bc9e2c1c0e7903c116@i2pn2.org> <100dfc8$15qbo$1@dont-email.me> <35c9fb020e868823c3e46c006d9ac4698eaf4f82@i2pn2.org> <100dl6g$16vdn$1@dont-email.me> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 23 May 2025 20:47:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4eccb3f3f363d163e571b8bff3e67b53"; logging-data="216111"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KRDySJyqjQj4QgnyrmNH9" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:/mThLbW4IaFlJp8JfmG8r7BPDaI= In-Reply-To: <100qf8b$7bjs$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: nl, en-GB 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: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. When will you finally understand that when something does not exists, it is very stupid to ask to show it?