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

On 6/11/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-10 14:59:33 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/10/2024 1:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-09 16:23:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.

>
The difference between two standard deviations from mean and
past 98% of the population is so small it does not matter.

>
My IQ is more than two standard deviations above the mean
when we assume that a standard deviation is 15.

 Which assumption might be incorrect. Usually IQ tests are normalized so
that their standard deviation is 16 but sometines a different normalization
is used.

Yes and at a standard deviation of 16 my 132 IQ just barely
flunked Mensa by a tiny fraction of a percent top 2.28%

Mensa does not specify any IQ value as acceptance limit but having
a higher IQ than 98% of population.
 

Yes I know this. They gave me two tests and I scored above
140 on one of them and still only got top 3%.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer