Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH diverges from DDD emulated by HHH1
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 15:11:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <101vi1h$2egad$5@dont-email.me>
References: <101khcl$3bfvj$6@dont-email.me> <101m8mv$3skr5$1@dont-email.me>
 <101nk2l$7qau$6@dont-email.me> <101oqit$m60d$1@dont-email.me>
 <101pmk3$smpc$1@dont-email.me>
 <bed0cca596d4cc181d690bdca83f611a703f791e@i2pn2.org>
 <101quko$15bg8$4@dont-email.me>
 <48c29c78abf789d7974ffeb9d4fbab2132265627@i2pn2.org>
 <101v8tc$2d3v6$4@dont-email.me>
 <8ec65db1646fa6b224ab5bad3d115e5f20c688f0@i2pn2.org>
 <101veu2$2egad$1@dont-email.me>
 <49ab87521030c8cde16c0ff8040f4473c00f7557@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 22:11:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2b1d5bc16a4dc23d074aaf02c68974e0";
	logging-data="2572621"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198qM9EmSZ/j86BRecG9ia1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kPK4CIAinQ7zjzN145v4GGrFtes=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <49ab87521030c8cde16c0ff8040f4473c00f7557@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250606-4, 6/6/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/6/2025 2:36 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:18:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/6/2025 2:14 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 06 Jun 2025 12:35:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/6/2025 12:26 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Wed, 04 Jun 2025 21:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 8:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/4/25 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-03 19:57:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-02 15:52:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The DDD emulated (correctly or otherwise) by HHH is the same
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD as the one emulated (correctly or otherwise) so both
>>>>>>>>>>> specify the same behaviour.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No they do not. When DDD calls its own emulator its behavior is
>>>>>>>>>> different than when DDD calls another different emulator.
>>>
>>>>> Their code is the same and has the same meaning. DDD always calls
>>>>> HHH.
>>> 	
>>> You overlooked this.
> 
> Please cut the above if you read it.
> 
>>>>>>>>> If the input string does not unambiguously specify one and only
>>>>>>>>> one behaviour it is incorrectly encoded and not a valid input
>>>>>>>>> string. The halting problem of Truing machines requires that
>>>>>>>>> every pair of a Turing macnine and input is descibed so that the
>>>>>>>>> behaviour to be decided about is the only behaviour that meets to
>>>>>>>>> the description.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The code proves what it proves.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what "simulation" is the above? It seems that you are showing a
>>>>>>> trace from x86, not what HHH is doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I am showing is DDD emulated by HHH1 side-by-side with DDD
>>>>>> emulated by HHH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *They initially match up*
>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH [00002183]
>>>>>> push ebp               [00002183] push ebp [00002184] mov ebp,esp
>>>>>> [00002184] mov ebp,esp [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186]
>>>>>> push 00002183 ; DDD [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b]
>>>>>> call 000015c3 ; HHH *The matching is now all used up*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Then DDD emulated by HHH does something*
>>>>>> *that DDD emulated by HHH1 never does*
>>>>>> *it emulates DDD all over again*
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH1 also does that, and more, because it doesn't abort.
>>>>>
>>>> HHH emulates itself emulating DDD HHH1 NEVER emulates itself
>>> I didn't say that it did. Like HHH it simulates HHH simulating DDD.
>>>
>> HHH1(DDD) simulates DDD that eventually halts. HHH(DDD) simulates DDD
>> that cannot possibly halt.

> There is no "DDD that doesn't halt". 

You change the words that I said before
rebutting these changed words.

DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
reach its own emulated "return" instruction
final state.

The input to HHH(DDD) SPECIFIES NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR.
That the caller of HHH(DDD) halts is none of the damn
business of HHH.

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