Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis ---

On 6/8/2024 11:43 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 08/06/2024 07:28, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-08 02:43:57 +0000, Mike Terry said:
>

On 07/06/2024 17:34, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 10:40:37 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/7/2024 10:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 10:20:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/7/2024 10:09 AM, Python wrote:

Le 07/06/2024 à 17:05, olcott a écrit :

On 6/7/2024 9:55 AM, Python wrote:

Le 07/06/2024 à 16:47, olcott a écrit :

>

The issue here is that I proved that DD correctly simulated by HH
has different behavior than the directly executed DD(DD) and
everyone's "rebuttal" to this proof is to simply ignore it.

When you actually try to form a rebuttal of the above you will see
that I am correct. So far everyone simply ignores the proof that I
am correct as their only rebuttal.

A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the above x86
machine language of DD is correctly simulated by HH and simulated in
the correct order.

And to the end. Thus it can't behave differently than direct execution.

You must not be very good at programming if you believe that
Infinite_Recursion must be simulated "to the end"

As I said before, if there is no end the simulation can't end either.

>
PO chooses to leave his terminology ambiguous, so we have 1000 post threads perpetuated by little more than verbal misunderstandings.

>
Crackpots are sometines like that. When they start to see that they can't
convince they start to gradually replace non-convincing arguments with
trolling until, at some point, all they try to do is to troll. Unless,
of course, some external cause makes them stop.
>

 I'd say you are vastly overestimating PO's capabilities.  Many people suggest he is trolling, but I've watched him for some years and I consider that he simply doesn't (/can't!/) understand the terminology people use, or their logical reasoning.  (He lacks the basic normaly abilities for abstract thought and reasoning.  He is not doing this deliberately.)
 Mije.
 

No the whole problem is that you and others are so sure that I
must be wrong that you simply don't play close enough attention
to see that I prove that I am correct.
<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 words10/13/2022>
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
Halt deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS
BASED ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES.
This input specifies the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH.
That everyone wants to avoid looking at my conclusive proof
that DD correctly simulated by HH has provably different
behavior than the directly executed DD(DD) *is dishonest*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer