Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point?

On 6/8/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 6:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 6:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 4:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 4:37 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 15:15:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 2:59 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 13:36:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 1:12 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:10:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 10:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
What are all the other HH?

Still waiting on this.

>

A simulator that simulates something different than the real thing is
not a simulator.

DD *correctly* simulated by HH has provably different behavior than the
directly behavior of the executed DD(DD).

 >

I mean, if one of them must be wrong, it can only be the simulator.
>

>
I proved otherwise and you ignored it.
>
I am always going to stop reading at the first big mistake
so this mistake can be focused on an corrected.
>

>
So, you should have stopped reading your own writing decades ago.
>
When are you going to fix your x86utm to match your current definition of correct simulation?

>
The simulated of DD is proven to be correct by the fact
that both execution traces match the x86 source-code of DD.
>

>
Except that the actual x86 trace never gets back there, so this is NOT a "Correct simulation" trace of the input.
>

>
Yes and by this same incorrect reasoning
<sarcasm>
   we know that all infinite recursion always
   terminates normally because "infinite recursion" is a
   term-of-the-art that means {terminates normally}.
</sarcasm>
>

>
So, how does the x86 processor get back to executing that adderess in the direct simulation by the outer HH as required by your definition of correct simulation.
>

 Are you asking how does infinite recursion terminate normally?

No, are you THAT stupid?
I am asking how the x86 processor gets from calling HH(DD,DD) back to the begining of DD as code actually executed, so it shows up in the simulation of the HH that was simulating that DD.
When the HH that this DD calls starts it simulation, since you have stated this is done by pure emulation, when did the program counter for that thread of execution ever get set back to the begining of DD.
Note, NOT the "virtual program counter that the simulator being simulated was using in its simulation (since that isn't anywhere in your definition of correct simulation) but the actual Program Counter in the simulation being run get there?

 

Since you have admitted to falsifing your verification, you are going to have to actual show your information.
>

 *I have proved this point since three years ago*
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
[Would the simulation of D be infinitely nested unless simulating partial halt decider H terminated its simulation of D?]
Message-ID: <YJKdnZg9v__rCC_9nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com>
 

Not the quesiton being asked, which is par for the course with you.
Remember, you just admitted to claiming verification with an output you didn't actually look at closely, so nothing "verified" by you can be considered verified.
You have burnt that bridge, you are going to need to provide the "paperwork" for the things you claim to be verified.
We can get to that question later, once we get your simulations to actually meet your specifications, which they currently do not.
Seems strange that a programmer with the qualifications you have claimed would have missed such an obvious error, I guess you just never check your work.