Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Every living thing wants to survive. -- Spock, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3

tech / sci.logic / Re: Why is it called x86utm if it's not a utm?

SubjectAuthor
* Re: Why is it called x86utm if it's not a utm?olcott
+- Re: Why is it called x86utm if it's not a utm?immibis
`- Re: Why is it called x86utm if it's not a utm?Richard Damon

1
Re: Why is it called x86utm if it's not a utm?

<uohn40$3sibb$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=7102&group=sci.logic#7102

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.bbs.nz!newsfeed.xs3.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: polco...@gmail.com (olcott)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why is it called x86utm if it's not a utm?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 18:05:19 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <uohn40$3sibb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uohha1$3rnov$2@dont-email.me> <uohhm8$3ro4d$1@dont-email.me>
<uohl3c$3s7np$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:05:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1d384058d8639f9e128ec682a989e290";
logging-data="4082027"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pB1PihjWdPctffMiCvshq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yghMERzXqTDp5VXrE6LlTpl6c9Y=
In-Reply-To: <uohl3c$3s7np$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: olcott - Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:05 UTC

On 1/20/2024 5:30 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/20/24 23:32, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/20/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> A Universal Turing Machine (UTM) behaves isomorphically to the direct
>>> execution of an input machine. x86utm doesn't do that.
>>
>> [bullshit]
>
> No olcott seems to understand that a Universal Turing Machine (UTM)
> behaves isomorphically to the direct execution of an input machine. END
> OF STORY.

There are nuances with the direct execution
of Ĥ that you are not paying attention to.

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does specify recursive simulation that
is aborted on its second recursive simulation.
This give the false impression that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Re: Why is it called x86utm if it's not a utm?

<uohnic$3sihb$3@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=7106&group=sci.logic#7106

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!news.furie.org.uk!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: new...@immibis.com (immibis)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why is it called x86utm if it's not a utm?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 01:13:00 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <uohnic$3sihb$3@dont-email.me>
References: <uohha1$3rnov$2@dont-email.me> <uohhm8$3ro4d$1@dont-email.me>
<uohl3c$3s7np$3@dont-email.me> <uohn40$3sibb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:13:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8847595628a46164bcb1ae8d1674385c";
logging-data="4082219"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/X33YBWhLlbUE/ZVmdbpvp"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.14.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ua9A8R/14zc40v53+jZ0hgFj5DY=
In-Reply-To: <uohn40$3sibb$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: immibis - Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:13 UTC

On 1/21/24 01:05, olcott wrote:
> On 1/20/2024 5:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/20/24 23:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/20/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> A Universal Turing Machine (UTM) behaves isomorphically to the
>>>> direct execution of an input machine. x86utm doesn't do that.
>>>
>>> [bullshit]
>>
>> No olcott seems to understand that a Universal Turing Machine (UTM)
>> behaves isomorphically to the direct execution of an input machine.
>> END OF STORY.
>
> There are nuances with the direct execution
> of Ĥ that you are not paying attention to.

No, there are no nuances here, only bullshit spewing out of your mouth.

A Turing machine/input pair has ONE CORRECT EXECUTION TRACE which is the
trace of its direct execution. All other traces are incorrect.

Re: Why is it called x86utm if it's not a utm?

<uohpum$3trm8$32@i2pn2.org>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=7116&group=sci.logic#7116

  copy link   Newsgroups: comp.theory sci.logic
Path: i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rich...@damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Why is it called x86utm if it's not a utm?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 19:53:42 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <uohpum$3trm8$32@i2pn2.org>
References: <uohha1$3rnov$2@dont-email.me> <uohhm8$3ro4d$1@dont-email.me>
<uohl3c$3s7np$3@dont-email.me> <uohn40$3sibb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:53:42 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
logging-data="4124360"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <uohn40$3sibb$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
 by: Richard Damon - Sun, 21 Jan 2024 00:53 UTC

On 1/20/24 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/20/2024 5:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/20/24 23:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/20/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> A Universal Turing Machine (UTM) behaves isomorphically to the
>>>> direct execution of an input machine. x86utm doesn't do that.
>>>
>>> [bullshit]
>>
>> No olcott seems to understand that a Universal Turing Machine (UTM)
>> behaves isomorphically to the direct execution of an input machine.
>> END OF STORY.
>
> There are nuances with the direct execution
> of Ĥ that you are not paying attention to.
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does specify recursive simulation that
> is aborted on its second recursive simulation.
> This give the false impression that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>

It specifies FINITE recursive simulation, that WILL halt in finite time.

The time is just longer than the simulation, so the simulation doesn't
actual prove any results.

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.81
clearnet tor