Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem

On 6/3/2025 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2025 8:48 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/3/2025 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2025 3:35 PM, dbush wrote:

On 6/3/2025 4:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/3/2025 2:55 AM, Mikko wrote:

It proves nothing without a proof that DDD is correctly simulated by HHH.

>
I have shown that proof too many times and people
denied the very obvious verified facts of it.
>

>
But you admitted on the record that it doesn't:
>

>
Facts override and supersede opinions dip shit.
>

>
And it is a fact that you admitted on the record that DDD

 Is a damned lie.
>

And now you lie that you made such an admission when the evidence (which you tried to hide by trimming but which I have restored) is right there in black and white for all to see.
As you yourself said:
On 5/25/2025 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 > You Are the epitome of bad faith and dishonesty.
 > This may cost you your actual soul: Revelations 21:8.

is not correctly simulated by HHH by failing to point out where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of any instruction other than a HTL is allowed to stop instead of executing the next instruction.
 It is also a fact that you dishonestly trimmed the evidence of this admission.
 

On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH