Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis ---

On 6/8/24 1:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 11:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 08/06/2024 07:28, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-08 02:43:57 +0000, Mike Terry said:
>

On 07/06/2024 17:34, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 10:40:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/7/2024 10:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 10:20:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/7/2024 10:09 AM, Python wrote:

Le 07/06/2024 à 17:05, olcott a écrit :

On 6/7/2024 9:55 AM, Python wrote:

Le 07/06/2024 à 16:47, olcott a écrit :

>

The issue here is that I proved that DD correctly simulated by HH
has different behavior than the directly executed DD(DD) and
everyone's "rebuttal" to this proof is to simply ignore it.

When you actually try to form a rebuttal of the above you will see
that I am correct. So far everyone simply ignores the proof that I
am correct as their only rebuttal.

A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the above x86
machine language of DD is correctly simulated by HH and simulated in
the correct order.

And to the end. Thus it can't behave differently than direct execution.

You must not be very good at programming if you believe that
Infinite_Recursion must be simulated "to the end"

As I said before, if there is no end the simulation can't end either.

>
PO chooses to leave his terminology ambiguous, so we have 1000 post threads perpetuated by little more than verbal misunderstandings.

>
Crackpots are sometines like that. When they start to see that they can't
convince they start to gradually replace non-convincing arguments with
trolling until, at some point, all they try to do is to troll. Unless,
of course, some external cause makes them stop.
>

>
I'd say you are vastly overestimating PO's capabilities.  Many people suggest he is trolling, but I've watched him for some years and I consider that he simply doesn't (/can't!/) understand the terminology people use, or their logical reasoning.  (He lacks the basic normaly abilities for abstract thought and reasoning.  He is not doing this deliberately.)
>
Mije.
>

 No the whole problem is that you and others are so sure that I
must be wrong that you simply don't play close enough attention
to see that I prove that I am correct.

Nope, YOU don't understand the basic terms youu use because you are just parroting things you found by rote, but never actually learned what they actually mean.
As Mike says, you have shown yourself mentally incapable of understanding some of the abstract notions that you try to talk about.

 <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 words10/13/2022>

Which, since his definition of "Correct Simulation" isn't yours, you can't actaully use.
The ONLY thing that Professor Sioser considers to be a "Correct SImulation" is a simulation the exactly reproduces the behavior of the directly executed code, which means a simulation that doesn't stop until it reaches a final state (even if that takes forever).
H does NOT do that sort of simulation, nor does it correctly determine that THIS input (and thus still calling the original H), if simulated by that sort of simulator will not halt, so you never satisfy the requirements, so can never claim the right of the second clause.
This has been explained to you many times, and your repeating it just shows a reckless disregard for the truth, and could open you up to a defamation suit by Professor Sipser. It also shows that your understanding of what other people say needs to be kept suspect, and you are proving yourself to be a pathological liar.

 On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
 Halt deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS
BASED ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES.
This input specifies the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH.
 

And BY DEFINITION (a word I am not sure you understand) the actual behavior the input specifies is the behavior of the directly executed machine represented by the input. That can also be created by giving the exact same input to a UTM (note, that means AFTER pairing your template to the decider) and leting it run to completion.

That everyone wants to avoid looking at my conclusive proof
that DD correctly simulated by HH has provably different
behavior than the directly executed DD(DD) *is dishonest*
 

Nope, we can see the holes in your arguments from miles aways, they are so big.
That you can't just shows your own mental limitiation, some of which seem to be self-inflicted by your refusal to study the materrial to knwo what you are talking about. Your "Zeroth Principles" study of them just doesn't cut it (You call them first principles, but that requires you to first study the field enough to actually KNOW the fundamental properties of the system, which it is clear you haven't done).