Re: olcott is still disagreeing with the semantics of simulation

On 7/1/24 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:

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
 

In other words, your logic presumes that it knows better than the person who spoke what he means.,
Just shows you are a DAMNED LIAR.
You may be unplesantly surprized at his answer, or maybe he will just lay a bigger trap for you and let you just totally embarass yourself with your paper.