1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Peter Olcott here seems to consistently lie about this ---

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Aug 1 23:16:51 2024
    On 8/1/24 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/1/2024 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 8/1/24 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
    *This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*
    <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

         H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
         specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
    </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

    But only for th right definition of "Correctly Simulated" which means
    of the exact input without aborting.


    DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
    language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
    emulates itself emulating DDD

    Nope.

    Call HHH needs to be followed in the trace by the instructions of HHH

    And you "full Trace" printouts are NOT the trace that HHH Makes, but
    are traces OF HHH doing its decision.


    The bottom line has always been (for three years now) that the
    fact that the next lines of DDD, (and DD) have always been the
    next lines that a correct x86 emulator would correctly emulate
    proves that HHH (and HH) did emulate these lines correctly
    *EVEN IF IT DID THIS BY WILD GUESS*

    Because of this all of the calls for a full execution trace
    have never been more than sadistic trollish head games.


    Nope, you just don't understand what the x86 processor actually does.

    Part of the problem is you don't understand what a PROGRAM is.

    When DDD calls HHH, that HHH code becomes part of the program DDD, and
    there is nothibng you can do to get around that, (but try lying).

    Your failure to understand this just proves your utter stupidity and
    ignorance of what you are talking about, and makes everything you say
    just an extetention of your lies.

    Unless you can shows some actual source to back your claim, you are just admitting that you are nothing but a pathological liar.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Aug 1 22:33:28 2024
    On 8/1/24 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
    *This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers*
    <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

        H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
        specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
    </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

    But only for th right definition of "Correctly Simulated" which means of
    the exact input without aborting.


    DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the x86
    language semantics of DDD and HHH including when DDD
    emulates itself emulating DDD

    Nope.

    Call HHH needs to be followed in the trace by the instructions of HHH

    And you "full Trace" printouts are NOT the trace that HHH Makes, but are
    traces OF HHH doing its decision.

    Also, if HHH aborts its simulaiton, it is NOT "Correct" per the x86
    lnguage semantics, as those semantics continue to process the code until
    it reaches a final state at the return in DDD (at least since HHH does
    decide to abort and return).



    *UNTIL*

    Which is what makes in not correct, and the decision about it not based
    on a correct simulation,


    HHH correctly determines that never aborting this
    emulation would cause DDD and HHH to endlessly repeat.

    Nope, HHH determines that the DDD built on a DIFFERENT HHH will not
    halt, and uses LIES to claim it applies to this DDD


    When I say everyone I mean:
    Joes, Fred, Richard, Mike, Mikko, Andy, André...

    *Excluding only Ben Bacarisse*
    On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/
    an H (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly
    determines that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless*
    aborted.
    ...
    But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if
    it were not halted.  That much is a truism.


    Nope, because you change the input DDD by changing the HHH that it
    calls, which is invalid.

    You are just proving that you don't understand how logic or programing
    or truth work at all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)