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

On 6/9/2024 10:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-09 13:58:35 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/9/2024 3:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-09 04:02:11 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/8/2024 10:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 6:34 PM, olcott wrote:

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>
 

 So, how does the x86 processor get back to executing that adderess in the direct simulation by the outer HH as required by your definition of correct simulation.
 

 Are you asking how does infinite recursion terminate normally?

 No, are you THAT stupid?
 

 I only missed Mensa by one point I am in the top 97%

 In Mensa we call your kind of people "normal".
 

 Thus directly disagreeing with the technical term that is
applied to standard deviations above the mean. Top 3% is
on the tail of the bell curve.

 Loosely speaking all but last 2% is normal, and peoöoe usually
speak loosely.
 

 More than two standard deviations above the mean is atypical.
Two standard deviations below the mean is the measure of mental
impairment qualifying for disability benefits.
 An actual Mensa member would know this.