Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 13:38:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <101fia9$1cj4h$1@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> <101etan$14dr4$2@dont-email.me>
 <101fbth$173bb$13@dont-email.me> <101fcgj$19e5f$2@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 20:38:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c9a131a468f55446a50ed4b18f7c4193";
	logging-data="1461393"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uUmlQxLhhZKAXmDlF0RX4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f5fjqWwIQ8kLAhv/a6+ztQYKwn8=
In-Reply-To: <101fcgj$19e5f$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250531-4, 5/31/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/31/2025 11:59 AM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/31/2025 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/31/2025 7:39 AM, dbush wrote:
>>> 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:
>>>
>>
>> No moron they are not.
>> HHH performs one whole recursive emulation of DDD
>> than HHH1 ever does BEFORE HHH EVER ABORTS.
>>
> 
> Nope, if that was true you would have previously identified the 
> divergence but failed to do so.
> 

The code has proved that it is true for three years.
That you are too stupid to read the code is not a rebuttal.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer