Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 07:09:18 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 120 Message-ID: References: <-5Gdnf-nQvstC6b7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 14:09:18 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="010db72b80f31f696ef17c51994f71bb"; logging-data="3020977"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UEtbB0i2GAurFCJNUo9IL" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:7/UfRNlloOai0iBtV6MpRFEpMuM= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6913 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. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer