Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ?

Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 16:29 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 08:27:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/3/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 10:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 10:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/2/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/2/24 9:18 PM, olcott wrote:

>

YOU are just a liar, as proved by the fact that you can not
give the Diagonalization proof you claimed you had.
>

But I am NOT disagreeing with the x86 language.
Can you point out what fact of it I am disagreing about it?
>

Nope, and x86n emulation is only fully correct if it continues to
the final end.

>
Why do you say such ridiculously stupid things that you are are
false?

And the only CORRECT EMULATION of that program is to infiniately loop
in the emulation.

Not for a freaking termination analyzer nitwit.

Why do they get to lie?

Open question.
>

Nothing says that you can't make a halt decider work with partial
emulation for SOME inputs. But the halt Decider just isn't itself a
fully correct emulator.

You keep stupidly saying that less than an infinite emulation is an
incorrect emulation. Why do you keep stupidly doing that?

Because it is. Partial emulations only show partial truth, and truth is
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
BEHAVIOR needs the FULL description of what happens.
>

Why do you keep lying about this?
As soon as HHH has seen a repeating state it has seen enough.

If the state is actually the same. But the simulated HHH sets a flag
or something to keep track if it is itself simulating a repetition. <-
Which it therefore isn’t.
>

>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
*This is the repeating state*

>
But not an *infinitely* repeating state.

 The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling
author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing
about *infinitely* repeating state.

Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your simulation is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here.
Sorry, you wasted two years, where a beginner could have corrected you.

 If you would quit trying to form rebuttals by deceptively
twisting my words you would have to agree that I am correct.

No, you are twisting Sipser's words, which were in the context of a correct simulation. Your simulation is not 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 words 10/13/2022>
 

You are running in circles. So, you will not proceed. Think a little bit about it.