Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 08:39:52 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <101etan$14dr4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <101a7uv$3vfam$5@dont-email.me> <101br7m$db03$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cjk7$hfof$7@dont-email.me>
 <d8d7c46fe2728e5481a504e6edacc8fd0fea5285@i2pn2.org>
 <101e8ak$vhu7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 14:39:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d1adda083d038348e190ff3433969ba4";
	logging-data="1193828"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19GDK9zhdJRuxI9rCVwqc4a"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Vf+WlYftoh1LplbkAwWNW05qzbs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <101e8ak$vhu7$1@dont-email.me>

On 5/31/2025 2:41 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/30/2025 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/30/25 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/30/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-29 18:10:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/29/2025 12:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 🧠 Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the classical framework of computation theory (Turing machines),
>>>>>> simulation is not equivalent to execution, though they can 
>>>>>> approximate one
>>>>>> another.
>>>>>
>>>>> To the best of my knowledge a simulated input
>>>>> always has the exact same behavior as the directly
>>>>> executed input unless this simulated input calls
>>>>> its own simulator.
>>>>
>>>> The simulation of the behaviour should be equivalent to the real
>>>> behaviour. 
>>>
>>> That is the same as saying a function with infinite
>>> recursion must have the same behavior as a function
>>> without infinite recursion.
>>
>> Nope. Where does it say that?
>>
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002192] 55             push ebp
> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
> [000021a3] c3             ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH must be aborted.   // otherwise infinite recursion
> DDD emulated by HHH1 need not be aborted.
> 


And the simulation performed by each of these is the same up to the 
point that HHH aborts, as you have admitted on the record:


On 5/6/2025 5:17 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/6/2025 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 5/6/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 5/6/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 5/6/2025 3:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> Then what is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs
 >>>>> from the emulation performed by UTM?
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> HHH1 is exactly the same as HHH except that DD
 >>>> does not call HHH1. This IS the UTM emulator.
 >>>> It does not abort.
 >>>
 >>> Last chance:
 >>>
 >>> What is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs from the
 >>> emulation performed by HHH1?
 >>
 >> Go back and read the part you ignored moron.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott has neglected to identify an
 > instruction that HHH emulates differently from HHH1.
 >
 >>> Failure to provide this in your next message or within one hour of
 >>> your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-
 >>> the-record admission that the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1
 >>> are in fact exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts, at
 >>> which point HHH did not correctly simulate the last instruction it
 >>> simulated as you are previously on record as admitting.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above requirements:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are in fact exactly the
 > same up until the point that HHH aborts, at which point HHH did not
 > correctly simulate the last instruction it simulated as he is previously
 > on record as admitting.