Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error

On 6/6/2024 5:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-05 13:29:28 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/5/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-04 18:02:03 +0000, olcott said:
>

*HOW PARTIAL SIMULATIONS CORRECTLY DETERMINE NON-HALTING*
>
On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is correct
(He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
>
<Professor Sipser agreed>
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
>
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
non-halting sequence of configurations.
</Professor Sipser agreed>

>
It is quite clear what Professor Sipser agreed.

>
Those were my verbatim words that he agreed to, no one
has ever correctly provided any alternative interpretation
that could possibly make my own HH(DD,DD)==0 incorrect.

 One can agree with those words because they are both clear and true.
Whether they are sufficient to your purposes is another problem but
that is nor relevant to their acceptablility.
 

If you use those words
as the second last part of your proof then it sould be obvious that we
need to look at the other parts in order to find an error in the proof.

>
That is slightly more than zero supporting reasoning yet mere gibberish
when construed as any rebuttal to this:

 Those who disagree with you about whether something is "gibberish" may
think that you are stupid. You probably don't want them to think so,
regardless whether thinking so would be right or wrong.
 

*This unequivocally proves the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf

 Why would anyone construe my words as any rebuttal to that? That pdf
merely claims that a partucuar author (a C program) proves two particular
claims, the second of which is badly formed (because of the two
verbs it is hard to parse and consequently hard to be sure that the
apparent meaning or apparent lack of meaning is what is intended).
 

*I will dumb it down for you some more*
Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]
_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
*That meets this criteria*
*You can either agree or fail to understand*
<Professor Sipser agreed>
   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
</Professor Sipser agreed>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer