Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###
Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 19:19:25 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <v2vned$3fl3r$1@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> <v2uthd$3bjch$1@dont-email.me> <v2vdkp$3dtct$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 18:19:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8ad64afada295d192aef3513cf0b12aa";
	logging-data="3658875"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Zhr+BfarKvhLq3//EUugc"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:A/gbpUfcxqZUlZU5NCGsxNAh770=
Bytes: 7855

On 2024-05-26 13:32:08 +0000, olcott said:

> On 5/26/2024 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-25 12:09:18 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Is the disagreement about the meaning of "correct" or "simulation"
>> or some other word, or is the disagreement about correctness of the
>> simulation?
>> 
> 
>     A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
>     x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
>     of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>     emulating D.
> 
> People disagree with the above definition.

Then you may ask what other word would be better instead of "simulator".

> They believe that a correct
> simulation requires H to report on the computation that itself is
> contained within:

Why should the term "simulation" imply anything about reporting?

-- 
Mikko