Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:51:26 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 141 Message-ID: References: <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <5nSdnSkMN76jIOH7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:51:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6b7ddfe8775f34f568700240d9d1b"; logging-data="2690140"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+f9wPTgZuWSx5kZeX0ljF1" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:meZruSgmwzARU6w93xkN3f13pUE= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 7681 On 6/26/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/26/24 10:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 27/06/2024 02:52, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/26/24 9:30 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>> On 27/06/2024 02:15, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>> On 27/06/2024 01:42, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/26/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way that it actually works. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That the the way that lies are defined. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Source for you claim? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the >>>>>>>>>>>> system to that claim? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret >>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I already told you that example does not count. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can't keep repeating those details or others >>>>>>>>> that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is >>>>>>>>> will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WHy not? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have already been over that you know that you cheated. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, since you didn't put in the rule, and if you had it would >>>>>> have shown that you lied, as if H0 is a pure function then the >>>>>> call to H0 emulated by H0 needs to have the same behaivor as the >>>>>> direct call to H0 by main. >>>>> >>>>> Incidentally, the nonconformance you're referring to is shown >>>>> explicitly in the "195 page trace" that PO linked to.  [I.e. the >>>>> simulated H does not correctly track the code path of the outer H.] >>>> >>>> I suppose I should have made clear, that's not simply due to the >>>> simulated H being aborted.  There is an instruction in H: [actually, >>>> in Init_Halts_HH()] >>>> >>>> [000012e4] 753b jnz 00001321 >>>> >>>> and in outer H control proceeds to 000012e6  [i.e. branch not taken], >>>> whilein simulated H control proceeds to 00001321  [i.e. branch taken] >>>> >>>> >>>> Mike. >>>> >>> >>> Would need to look closer at the code, but I bet that the simulated >>> machine is looking into the trace buffer to see if it is simulated or >>> not. >> >> Has PO published the C code for the trace?  Anyhow, given that its in >> Init_Halts_HH(), I expect its a global area being initialised - >> probably the global trace table. >> >>> >>> In effect, it is misusing static memory just like he says isn't allowed. >> >> Right. >> >> >> Mike. >> > He published the source code of at least his earlier code, and I suspect > he hasn't made major changes to it. I forget it it was a zip file on his > server or a Github repository. > > THe code for Init_Halts_HH() is: > > > u32 Init_Halts_HH(u32**                   Aborted, >                   u32**                   execution_trace, >                   Decoded_Line_Of_Code**  decoded, >                   u32*                    code_end, >                   u32                     P, >                   Registers**             master_state, >                   Registers**             slave_state, >                   u32**                   slave_stack) > { >   *decoded      = (Decoded_Line_Of_Code*) > Allocate(sizeof(Decoded_Line_Of_Code)); >   *code_end     = get_code_end(P); >   *master_state = (Registers*) Allocate(sizeof(Registers)); >   *slave_state  = (Registers*) Allocate(sizeof(Registers)); >   *slave_stack  = Allocate(0x10000); // 64k >   Output((char*)"New slave_stack at:", (u32)*slave_stack); >   if (**execution_trace == 0x90909090) >   { > //  Global_Recursion_Depth = 0; >     **Aborted = 0; >     **execution_trace = (u32)Allocate(sizeof(Decoded_Line_Of_Code) * > 10000); >     Output((char*)"\nBegin Local Halt Decider Simulation   " >            "Execution Trace Stored at:", **execution_trace); >     return 1; >   } >   return 0; > } > > > Note the mention of "Global_Recursion_Depth", Is disabled. It is commented out. It was only ever used so that humans could see the depth. >> a decider shouldn't be > able to know that it isn't the top level decider. This doesn't have any effect on its computation thus irrelevant. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer