Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point?

On 6/8/2024 5:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 6:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 4:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 4:37 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 15:15:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 2:59 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 13:36:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 1:12 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:10:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 10:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
What are all the other HH?

Still waiting on this.

>

A simulator that simulates something different than the real thing is
not a simulator.

DD *correctly* simulated by HH has provably different behavior than the
directly behavior of the executed DD(DD).

 >

I mean, if one of them must be wrong, it can only be the simulator.
>

>
I proved otherwise and you ignored it.
>
I am always going to stop reading at the first big mistake
so this mistake can be focused on an corrected.
>

>
So, you should have stopped reading your own writing decades ago.
>
When are you going to fix your x86utm to match your current definition of correct simulation?

>
The simulated of DD is proven to be correct by the fact
that both execution traces match the x86 source-code of DD.
>

 Except that the actual x86 trace never gets back there, so this is NOT a "Correct simulation" trace of the input.
 

Yes and by this same incorrect reasoning
<sarcasm>
   we know that all infinite recursion always
   terminates normally because "infinite recursion" is a
   term-of-the-art that means {terminates normally}.
</sarcasm>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer