Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review

On 6/4/24 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 10:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 11:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 9:57 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 04/06/2024 03:18, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 8:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/3/24 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2024 8:38 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

>

An execution trace that is produced by a program that is incorrect /proves/ nothing whatsoever. I don't need to look at your proof, as I was commenting on the value of your program output AS PROOF.
>

>
I provided the execution trace that HH derives
*AND THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF DD THAT PROVES THIS TRACE IS CORRECT*
*AND THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF DD THAT PROVES THIS TRACE IS CORRECT*
*AND THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF DD THAT PROVES THIS TRACE IS CORRECT*

>
Then why did the trace not follow the call to H?
>

>
HH(DD,DD) the trace does follow the call to HH(DD,DD)
and fully simulates itself simulating DD.

>
Yes HH does simulate the call to HH(DD,DD) and certain instructions within HH, although because you filter those trace entries out, nobody can check that.
>
The point is it simulates THE WRONG INSTRUCTIONS within HH as discussed in other posts.
>

>
I conclusively proved that HH correctly simulated the instructions of
DD and I also proved that the simulated HH also correctly simulated the
instructions of DD by the fact that the provided execution traces by both the outer and the inner nested simulations exactly matched the behavior that the x86 source code of D specifies, line-by-line.

>
Nope, not that you have ever published, at least not by your current definition, as you have never to my knowledge published any trace that showed the x86 insturctions of HH (or H).
>

 Published hundreds of times here any other places,
now publishing it again right here:
 On 6/4/2024 11:28 AM, olcott wrote:
[Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD)
  simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry]
 

But based on the WRONG definition of "Correct" to be able to talk about the input being non-halting, so just "double speak", and essentially a LIE.