Re: Mike Terry Proves --- How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met

Op 23.mei.2025 om 20:51 schreef olcott:

On 5/23/2025 1:47 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 23.mei.2025 om 20:36 schreef olcott:

On 5/23/2025 1:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 23.mei.2025 om 19:54 schreef olcott:

On 5/23/2025 12:49 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 23.mei.2025 om 18:24 schreef olcott:

On 5/23/2025 1:56 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-22 22:35:51 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/22/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-21 15:33:23 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/21/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-20 14:37:40 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/20/2025 2:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-20 04:20:54 +0000, olcott said:
>

<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
>
Do you understand that we are only evaluating whether
or not HHH/DDD meets this above criteria?

>
I do understand that the meaning of the behaviour is not mentioned
in the creteria and is therefore irrelevant, an obvious consequence
of which is that your "WRONG!" above is false.

>
*H correctly simulates its input D until*
specifies that HHH must simulate DDD according
to the meaning of the rules of the x86 language.

>
The words Sipser agreed to do not refer to that specification, and
is irrelevant to the fact that the meaning of the behaviour, if
there is any, isn't referred there, either.

>
Sure they do. There is only a single measure of
*H correctly simulates its input D*
When the language of D is the x86 language.

>
No, they do not. Sipser said nothing about any specific language. That
you may apply his words to a specific language does not mean that
Sipser referred to that language.

>
*If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D*
What is the criterion measure of a correct simulation?
>
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>
The damned liars here are trying to get away with
a correct simulation of DDD interprets: "push ebp"
to mean "jmp 000021a3"

>
A straw man fallcy is a lie, so you are lying.
>

>
I am paraphrasing.
They stupidly expect that DDD emulated by HHH must
have the same behavior as DDD emulated by HHH1.
The ONLY way to do that is for HHH to emulate
DDD AGAINST THE RULES OF THE X86 LANGUAGE.
>

>
Because it is against the rules of the X86 language it is stupid to expect that one correct simulation differs from another correct simulation.

>
It may seem this way to people lacking
the capacity to pay complete attention.
>
I dared people to show the exact mistake of
DDD correctly simulated by HHH and the best
that they had was counter-factual statements.

>
But you failed,

>
*It is not my failure dip-shit*

>
It is.
>

*I dared you to show a correct simulation*
*of DDD by HHH where the simulated DDD reaches*
*its own "ret" instruction*

>
And I told you that such a HHH does not exists.

 Do you know that when DDD emulated by HHH cannot reach
its own "ret" instruction (final halt state)
that this means that DDD emulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT?
 

No, it means that the simulation halted and failed before it could reach the 'ret' instruction. This failure of the simulation does not tell anything about the halting behaviour of DDD. Is that too difficult to understand? The input specifies an abort and an end of the program, but HHH does not reach it due to the premature abort.
This failure of HHH to prevent DDD to halt by a premature abort, is a well known bug in HHH.
We told you about it, but your are unable to repair that bug. We also expect that your cannot repair it, because no correct HHH exists that can simulate itself up to the end.