Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ca philosophy |
Am Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:48:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:All of the chatbots figure out that I am correctOn 7/26/2025 3:05 AM, joes wrote:Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 15:02:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:On 7/25/2025 2:10 PM, joes wrote:Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 11:32:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:Ok, so modifying HHH to simulate further also changes the input DDD,When HHH emulates DDD then DDD calls HHH(DDD) based on whatever code isBut does DDD call whatever is behind the name "HHH" or does it call theOh, really now? I thought it referred to its simulator HHH by name.The actual code has always been based on an x86 emulator that emulates
finite strings of x86 machine code bytes.
fixed code that aborts just before the second recursive call? Because
DDD calling a modified HHH' is a different program.
at machine address 000015d2.
because it calls the same address. Gotcha.
The trace only shows it is different. It remains to be shown that theSince the execution trace conclusively proves that it is correct yourFor three years everyone here acts like it is impossible for them toIt is not impossible to understand. It is wrong.
understand that the correct emulation of an input that calls its own
emulator HHH(DDD) can possibly be different than the emulation of the
same input that does not call its own emulator HHH1(DDD).
mere intuition to the contrary is proven to be incorrect.
abort was correct.
Right?If we prefix all programs we pass to HHH with DDD, they should not be
aborted as if the were the same.
If HHH were a correct simulator, it would produce the same behaviour as
an UTM. (HHH1 is the same as HHH, right?)
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.