Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?

On 6/22/24 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2024 3:01 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 14:35:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/22/2024 2:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/24 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2024 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:

>

The correct measure of the behavior of the actual input is DDD correctly
simulated by H0 according to the definition of the semantics of the x86
programming language.

The correct measure is the behaviour of DDD itself. Any old simulator can
do it, but H0 specifically can't.
>

>
H0 has libx86emu embedded within it.
Several decades of development effort went into that.

>
But does it use it right?
>
After all, part of your problem is that you try to change the quesiton, and the right answer to the wrong question can be the wrong answer for the right question.
>
Your inability to get the required trace out makes me think you aren't actually doing what you claim to be doing.

 It has been correct and proven correct for more than three
years yet damned liars here still deny it.

Then you could show the trace.
But you can't, so you are just a LIAR.
One issue is that three years ago, your were not as insistant on the x86 simulation, which gave you a bit more room to argue about equivalences (which you could never actually establish). By x86, you HAVE to trace from the pathological program into the decider and then show the steps in the decider to try to show your claim.
The problem is that then the ability for the decider being simulated to decide to stop its own simulation becomes evident, so you can't show that it never will.
This breaks your "infinite recursion" claim, and your proof,
This is the problem with basing your story on a lie. it is hard to keep the lie hidden. WHich cause you to ned to stipulate things that box you away from what you want to try to prove, as they need to get to the lie, but you can't let it be seen.

 

>

That you and others keep referring to the behavior of non-inputs is flat
out stupid. That is not the way that actual computations actually work.

The input is just DDD.
>

>
The input is the machine language of DDD that calls H0(DDD)
in recursive emulation.
>

>
No, it call H0(DDD) to decide on DDD.
>
>
>
>