Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 13:03:16 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 144
Message-ID: <v2t954$2vna0$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1gid8$4ilc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1h9eu$9faf$1@dont-email.me> <v1iqli$nsva$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1ln3c$vfh$1@news.muc.de> <v1s6e6$397iq$2@dont-email.me>
 <v1slmi$3cjtp$1@dont-email.me> <v1t8tt$3gu9t$3@dont-email.me>
 <v1vc8j$3jmr$1@dont-email.me> <v1vsru$7eqc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v21r4i$otc2$2@dont-email.me> <v22k4b$umr4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v24oah$1h4u3$1@dont-email.me> <v256fc$1kais$1@dont-email.me>
 <v27d05$25ga0$1@dont-email.me> <v2838r$29rd7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2a8th$2ps09$1@dont-email.me> <v2ahqc$2qvr9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2cb5s$39fvg$1@dont-email.me> <v2crk0$3cifp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2cvuo$3dfkm$1@dont-email.me> <v2i921$jvcs$5@dont-email.me>
 <v2k7fe$12vjm$1@dont-email.me> <v2l0q8$17mu1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2n4f7$1ms87$1@dont-email.me> <v2nfma$1or9h$4@dont-email.me>
 <v2pkqq$28mg0$1@dont-email.me> <v2qhr2$2dpfr$6@dont-email.me>
 <v2s6kk$2q0pf$1@dont-email.me> <v2skde$2s65h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2sn2j$22aq0$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 20:03:17 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="010db72b80f31f696ef17c51994f71bb";
	logging-data="3136832"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19MoN/j5P1hCowlyUvFbdsW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CPR6OHAEnQmOIzY+7RTXXc7tsUg=
In-Reply-To: <v2sn2j$22aq0$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7759

On 5/25/2024 7:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/25/24 8:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/25/2024 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-24 17:13:05 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/24/2024 3:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-23 13:18:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/23/2024 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-22 14:51:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/22/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-21 13:54:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> You are asking for the definition of correct simulation
>>>>>>>>>> that I have been providing for quite a while recently.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That was not my main intent. I wanted to know why your
>>>>>>>>> statement
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No D simulated correctly by any H of every H/D pair 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> exludes every unsimulated or incorrectly simulated D?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That sounds like Richard that assumed that incorrect answers are OK
>>>>>>>> unless I specifically say that incorrect answers are not OK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe but I don't promise that the response to the incorrect answer
>>>>>>> will sound the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>  > On 5/19/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>  >> Richard has stated that he thinks that an example of
>>>>>>>>  >> {D never simulated by H} ∈ {every D simulated by H}
>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>  > No, the H that didn't simulate its input shows that
>>>>>>>>  > *once you allow H to not be required to be correct*,
>>>>>>>>  > that we can then have a trivial function that is
>>>>>>>>  > "just as correct" (since wrong answers were allowed).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A c function is correctly simulated when its machine language
>>>>>>>>>> instructions are emulated with an x86 emulator in the order
>>>>>>>>>> that they are specified by the x86 machine language of this
>>>>>>>>>> c function.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does "its machine language instructions" mean all executed 
>>>>>>>>> instructions
>>>>>>>>> until the progam terminates? Or from the start of the program 
>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>> there is no reason to continue? Or from some point to some 
>>>>>>>>> other point?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It means that 1 to N instructions of D are correctly simulated
>>>>>>>> by pure function H. Because D correctly simulated by H remains
>>>>>>>> stuck in recursive simulation D cannot possibly reach is own
>>>>>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you mean that H cannot simulate D to the line 06 then say so.
>>>>>>> A D that is simulated by H is D and so is a D that is not simulated
>>>>>>> by H so both can do what a D can do. Saying "simulated by H" adds
>>>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For non-terminating functions we can only correctly
>>>>>>>>>> simulate N machine language instructions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But does you definition regard that partial simulation as "correct
>>>>>>>>> simulation"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When 1 to 2^64 instructions of D are correctly simulated by H
>>>>>>>> it becomes clear that for every H/D pair of the infinite set
>>>>>>>> of H/D pairs D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive
>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you think that the meaning of "correctly simulate" is not
>>>>>>> important you should not use those words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I must use those words or a standard of incorrect simulation
>>>>>> is assumed.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no "standard of incorrect simulation".
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have been going over the term "correct simulation"
>>>>>> in these forums with dozens of people and hundreds of messages
>>>>>> over several years.
>>>>>
>>>>> That alone is a sufficient reaston to avoid the expression.
>>>>>
>>>>>> CORRECT SIMULATION DEFINED
>>>>>>    In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly
>>>>>>    emulates at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order
>>>>>>    specified by the x86 instructions of D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H 
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>    order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling 
>>>>>> H(D,D) in
>>>>>>    recursive simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not a definition but perhaps a suffient substitute for 
>>>>> paractical
>>>>> purposes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It provides a clear and correct criterion measure to utterly
>>>> refute each and every reviewer that tries to get away with
>>>> the incorrect emulation of the x86 instructions of H or D or
>>>> emulating them in the wrong order.
>>>
>>> You may call it a "diagnostic criterion" or just a "criterion" but
>>> it does not define anything. Whether it is clear or sufficient is
>>> another problem.
>>>
>>
>> For over two years I had two dozen people unified in consensus
>> continue to insist that a correct simulation of D by H did not
>> require emulating the x86 machine language instructions of D
>> correctly or in the correct order specified by D.
>>
> 
> WHERE?
> 
This is all explained in my reply to Mike.
If you want to talk about it there
(1) Do not link to comp.theory

(2) Do not talk about anything outside the scope of
     the semantics of c

(3) Do not talk about anything outside the scope of the subject
   of the thread:
   [D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot
    possibly reach its own line 06]

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv2t859%242vna0%241%40dont-email.me%3E 


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer