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 21:04:51 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 83 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 04:04:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6b7ddfe8775f34f568700240d9d1b"; logging-data="2675332"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KNyULgFXknd+IjmxN4I0V" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fug577ePvnxKwAMRifG5Ech4Vvs= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5131 On 6/26/2024 8:30 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. > It *is* legitimate for the master UTM to share its own tape with its slave UTM's and in fact this is the ONLY way that slave UTMs can get any tape space. I may not have implemented that as purely as possible yet for actual UTMs this *is* the way that it works. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer