Re: Peter Olcott here seems to consistently lie about this ---

On 8/1/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/1/24 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:

*This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*
<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>

 But only for th right definition of "Correctly Simulated" which means of the exact input without aborting.
 

>
DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
emulates itself emulating DDD

 Nope.
 Call HHH needs to be followed in the trace by the instructions of HHH
 And you "full Trace" printouts are NOT the trace that HHH Makes, but are traces OF HHH doing its decision.
 

The bottom line has always been (for three years now) that the
fact that the next lines of DDD, (and DD) have always been the
next lines that a correct x86 emulator would correctly emulate
proves that HHH (and HH) did emulate these lines correctly
*EVEN IF IT DID THIS BY WILD GUESS*
Because of this all of the calls for a full execution trace
have never been more than sadistic trollish head games.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer