Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- key error in all the proofs --- Mike

On 8/12/2024 6:03 PM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 12 Aug 2024 11:52:58 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/12/2024 11:42 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/12/2024 11:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/12/24 11:34 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/12/2024 10:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/12/24 9:16 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/12/2024 8:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/12/24 8:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/11/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/11/24 8:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/11/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 8:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:

 

In other words you cannot see that the following code exactly
matches the x86 source-code of DDD thus proving that the
second HHH did emulate it input correctly?
>

Your problem is that that is not the COMPLETE x86 source code
of the PROGRAM DDD, as that needs the code for HHH included in
it.
A correct x86 emulation of DDD includes the correct emulation
of HHH.
>

It does do this yet mixing in the 200 pages of other code makes
it too difficult to see the execution trace of DDD.

No, to make a claim, you need to provide the actual proof.

Four expert C programmers (two with masters degrees in computer
science) agree that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt.
>

But your HHH doesn't "Correctly Simulate" DDD by the same
definition that makes that true.

When I state verified facts I am definitely not a liar even when I
do not make this verification available to others.

This is just too funny.
 

Also, "4 experts" don't make a proof, just a logical fallacy,
which just also prove you don't know what you are talking about,
but are just a pathological liar.

QFT
 

But the CONDITION isn't that it won't halt until aborted, but it will
not halt EVER.

When you insist on disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
an many times as you have it is unreasonably implausible to construe
this as any sort of honest mistake.

Have you ever clarified what the disagreement is about?
 

I am absolutely shocked that Mike disagrees though.

Shocked, I say!
 

That he will not point out any divergence of the x86 execution trace of
DDD emulated by HHH from the semantics of the x86 language is
significant indication seems quite telling that he is wrong.

The divergence is that the simulation is aborted

Everyone has claimed that it is wrong as soon as the
emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD) long before it is aborted.
They are either liars about this or liars about their
own technical competence. Now that we have gotten to
the point of zero new rebuttals I am through with them.
They are written off.

, i.e. the following
instructions are not simulated. Preemptively: of course a nonterminating
program can't be simulated in finite time.
 

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