Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis

Le 07/06/2024 à 17:05, olcott a écrit :

On 6/7/2024 9:55 AM, Python wrote:

Le 07/06/2024 à 16:47, olcott a écrit :

... Turing machines can only take finite string
inputs thus cannot take Turing machines as inputs.

>
WTF??? Since then a Turing machine cannot be represented
as a finite string?
>

 Turing machines can take a finite string machine description
of the computation that contains themselves they cannot
the computation that actually contains themselves.

You forgot a few verbs in your answer.
Anyway, you're wrong : a Turing machine can take its own
description as part of its input, as it is finite.

It anyone is paying 100% complete attention then they will
see that the there is no correct rebuttal to the following.
 Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
 _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
 

The issue here is that I proved that DD correctly simulated
by HH has different behavior than the directly executed
DD(DD) and everyone's "rebuttal" to this proof is to simply
ignore it.

>
"correctly simulated" has "different than directly executed"
>

 When you actually try to form a rebuttal of the above you will
see that I am correct. So far everyone simply ignores the proof
that I am correct as their only rebuttal.

If you change the meaning of the word "correctly", sure :-)

This is dementia at the higher degree.