Re: At least 100 people kept denying the easily verified fact --- last communication with Richard

On 6/7/24 7:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

On 6/7/2024 3:56 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 14:31:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/7/2024 1:57 PM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2024-06-07 at 13:41 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 1:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/7/24 2:02 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 12:50 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

>
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior of the
directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation of the above
definition of correct simulation.
>

And thus you admit that HH is not a Halt Decider,

>

The Halting Problem asks for a program H (precisely a TM) that:
IF H(D,D)==1, THEN D(D) will return.
ELSE If H(D,D)==0, THEN D(D) will never return.
ELSE HP is undecidable
>

When we can show that even in the halting problem HH is only required to
report on the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH these dishonest
people merely use that as another deflection point for their dishonesty.
The way around this that just worked is to stay diligently focused one
one single point until the dishonest people finally admit that they have
simply ignored all the proofs for three solid years.

 >

"only" It must report on the behaviour of DD, which must be the same when
simulated. It can't simulate something different and say "look! My result
simulating this is right, because it is my result!".
>

>
The most persistent false assumption that cannot possibly
be corrected without expertise in the x86 programming language.
Some people here have that.

>
You seem confused.
>
>
I haven't seen ANYONE complain about any x86 instruciton actually simulated.
>
The complaints have always been about those NOT simulated by your system, like the CALL H instruction.
>

 It estimates the the full trace is 230 pages it is actually 246 pages.
https://liarparadox.org/HH(DD,DD)_FULL_TRACE.pdf
 HH simulates DD that calls HH that simulates DD and shows all of
the steps of the simulated HH. The execution trace of DD is mixed
in to this making it more difficult to find.

Except that this is the trace of main calling HH which then simulated DD, and doesn't seem to show the trace that this HH does itself, except maybe weirdly imbedded within that first trace.
I don't think you really know what you are doing.
You said you were going to post the trace that the directly executed HH was making as it correctly simulated DD.
This is not that trace.
That trace should start at the first instruction of DD and then go into HH.

 

You STILL Haven't published any results that match your current definition of correct simulation.
--

Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer