Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Sun, 26 May 2024 11:50:21 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 171 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 18:50:23 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3"; logging-data="3670723"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19nsVYlkKRCRM+4hA30LNSX" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:TOb21BDO+ZhnMqPj3Ve/i5FRcMg= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 9153 On 5/26/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote: > 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? > There you go an actual mistake that I made. I will phrase what I mean more accurately. Everyone reviewing my work agrees that D correctly simulated by H should simulate the behavior of the directly executed D(D) thus not the actual behavior of D correctly simulated by pure function H. When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never reaches its own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly simulated steps. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========