Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 02. Jul 2024, 03:18:09
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v5vo12$1f17p$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/1/2024 8:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/1/24 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/1/24 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/1/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:49:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard
Damon wrote:
>
The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH at machine address
0000217a cannot possibly return.
But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO
DEFINED.
>
DDD is  emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to
repeat the process until aborted.
And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL
return to DDD and it will return also.
Right.
>
The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not
the behavior of the input.
When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior stops. DDD is
the input.
Again: emulating does not change what the input does of its own. Aborting
an emulation is premature, as the input does not contain an abort.
>
>
*The title of this post is a lie*
*The title of this post is a lie*
*The title of this post is a lie*
>
Nope, it is the TRUTH.
>
OLCOTT is the one lying.
>
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Loop);
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}
>
*Each one of these cases meets this criteria*
>
<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>
>
>
Right. and since the definition of a "Correct Simulation" that Professor Sipser would use (as with most of the world) is one that recreates the full behavior of the program represented by the input,
>
No Professor Sipser would agree to this:
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.
>
>
 Why do you say that?
 
Because he already knows the truth of it.
Now that I am getting closer to death I may contact him again.
I have to perfect my new paper before doing this.
*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input P*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P --
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
29 Jun 24 * People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language129olcott
29 Jun 24 +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language23Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language22olcott
29 Jun 24 i +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language20Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language19olcott
29 Jun 24 i i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language18Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language17olcott
29 Jun 24 i i   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language16Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i i    `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language15olcott
29 Jun 24 i i     `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language14Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i i      `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language13olcott
29 Jun 24 i i       `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language12Richard Damon
29 Jun 24 i i        `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language11olcott
29 Jun 24 i i         `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language10Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i i          `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language9olcott
30 Jun 24 i i           `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language8Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i i            `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language7olcott
30 Jun 24 i i             +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Mikko
30 Jun 24 i i             `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language5Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i i              `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4olcott
30 Jun 24 i i               `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i i                `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
30 Jun 24 i i                 `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Mikko
30 Jun 24 +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language103Mikko
30 Jun 24 i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language102olcott
30 Jun 24 i +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language50Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i i+* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3olcott
30 Jun 24 i ii+- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i ii`- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
30 Jun 24 i i+* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language42olcott
30 Jun 24 i ii`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language41Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language40olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language39Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language38olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii    `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language37Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii     `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language36olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii      `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language35Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii       `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language34olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii        +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language30Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii        i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language29olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii        i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language28Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii        i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language27olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii        i   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language26Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii        i    +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language21olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii        i    i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language20Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii        i    i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language19olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  +* Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation7joes
1 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i`* Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation6olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i `* Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation5Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i  `* Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation4olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i   `* Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation3Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i    `* Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation2olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i     `- Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation1Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
3 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1joes
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language6Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language5olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i i `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
3 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  i `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1joes
2 Jul 24 i ii        i    i  `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Mikko
1 Jul 24 i ii        i    `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4olcott
1 Jul 24 i ii        i     `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i ii        i      `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
2 Jul 24 i ii        i       `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
4 Jul 24 i ii        `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3joes
4 Jul 24 i ii         `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2olcott
4 Jul 24 i ii          `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged4olcott
1 Jul 24 i i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged3Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged2olcott
1 Jul 24 i i   `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language --- repeat until acknowledged1Richard Damon
1 Jul 24 i +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language45Mikko
1 Jul 24 i i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language44olcott
1 Jul 24 i i +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language2joes
1 Jul 24 i i i`- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1olcott
2 Jul 24 i i +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
2 Jul 24 i i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language40Mikko
2 Jul 24 i i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language39olcott
2 Jul 24 i i   +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language34Fred. Zwarts
2 Jul 24 i i   i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language33olcott
3 Jul 24 i i   i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language32Fred. Zwarts
3 Jul 24 i i   i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language31olcott
3 Jul 24 i i   i   +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language14joes
3 Jul 24 i i   i   i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language13olcott
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language12joes
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language11olcott
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language9joes
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language8olcott
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i +* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language6joes
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i i`* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language5olcott
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language4joes
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i i  `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3olcott
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i i   +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1joes
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i i   `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   i `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
4 Jul 24 i i   i   i   `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
3 Jul 24 i i   i   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language16Fred. Zwarts
3 Jul 24 i i   +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Richard Damon
3 Jul 24 i i   `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language3Mikko
1 Jul 24 i `* Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language6Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 24 +- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1Fred. Zwarts
1 Jul 24 `- Re: People are still trying to get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language1olcott

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal