Sujet : Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work --- correct emulation --- CORRECTION
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 18. Oct 2024, 08:55:30
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <1b74fcd36e0c03ebf2dcaa8d1a3d636485060e7b@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Thu, 17 Oct 2024 11:07:53 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/17/2024 6:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/16/24 8:55 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/16/24 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/15/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2024 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/15/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/15/2024 2:33 PM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/15/2024 10:17 AM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:11:30 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 10/15/2024 6:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/14/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/14/2024 6:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/14/24 11:18 AM, olcott wrote:
I did that, and it admitted that DDD halts, it just tries
to justify why a wrong answer must be right.
It explains in great detail that another different DDD (same
machine code different process context) seems to terminate
only because the recursive emulation that it specifies has
been aborted at its second recursive call.
Yes! It really has different code, by way of the static Root
variable.
No wonder it behaves differently.
There are no static root variables. There never has been any
"not a pure function of its inputs" aspect to emulation.
Oh, did you take out the check if HHH is the root simulator?
There is some code that was obsolete several years ago.
No, that code is still active. it is the source of the value for
the variable Root that is passed around, and is checked in the
code to alter the behavior.
It has no effect on the trace itself.
Yes it does.
HHH is correctly emulating (not simulating) the x86 language finite
string of DDD including emulating the finite string of itself
emulating the finite string of DDD up until the point where the
emulated emulated DDD would call HHH(DDD) again.
Nope, not to a degree that determine the final behavior of the input.
You are responding to something that I did not say.
HHH correctly emulates N steps of DDD therefore N steps of DDD are
correctly emulated by HHH.
Right, but just because N steps don't get to the return, doesn't mean
that the input doesn't return.
Don't copypaste irrelevant shit. Are you saying that simulating only
finitely many loops is the same as infinitely many?
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work
Re: ChatGPT refutes the key rebuttal of my work