Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH diverges from DDD emulated by HHH1--- BEST
 ONE
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 09:13:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <1021hf0$3327l$5@dont-email.me>
References: <101khcl$3bfvj$6@dont-email.me> <101oda2$hd6o$8@dont-email.me>
 <101oe1m$i3m6$3@dont-email.me> <101oee0$hd6o$9@dont-email.me>
 <101oeik$i3m6$4@dont-email.me> <101ofvi$inkg$1@dont-email.me>
 <101pask$pv5r$1@dont-email.me> <101porr$ta6v$1@dont-email.me>
 <101qb4p$11sr2$1@dont-email.me> <101qbtj$11qlg$1@dont-email.me>
 <101qc32$11sr2$3@dont-email.me> <101qhst$13bo7$1@dont-email.me>
 <101qicm$11sr2$4@dont-email.me> <101qjki$13i0e$1@dont-email.me>
 <101qn7s$14gq1$1@dont-email.me> <101qnp3$14gff$1@dont-email.me>
 <101qo1g$14gq1$2@dont-email.me> <101qoia$14gff$2@dont-email.me>
 <101qp3h$14gq1$3@dont-email.me> <101qqn5$14gff$4@dont-email.me>
 <101qrrc$14gq1$4@dont-email.me> <101qsfp$15bg8$1@dont-email.me>
 <101r4f3$1asab$1@dont-email.me> <101r6be$1adut$4@dont-email.me>
 <101v3lk$2c3ca$1@dont-email.me> <101v6df$2c1iv$4@dont-email.me>
 <b71e0886124c2f8ab25cf316517d32881cf353bc@i2pn2.org>
 <1020cg6$2ovvr$1@dont-email.me>
 <85bbc19fae66d1403bda5b9aff2778cd66d6f633@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2025 16:13:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b5701e9588c79f836e89c5073f428a2";
	logging-data="3246325"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+9BPrlJ8Ynq5qmNIH866JI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OwpiGW5zYAPOrEWpKY/vtpy4EZ8=
In-Reply-To: <85bbc19fae66d1403bda5b9aff2778cd66d6f633@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250607-2, 6/7/2025), Outbound message

On 6/7/2025 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/6/25 11:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/6/2025 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/6/25 12:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/6/2025 11:06 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 05/06/2025 05:27, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 10:55 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/06/2025 02:39, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 8:28 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 9:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 7:41 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2025 8:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Show me this side-by-side trace and I will point out your 
>>>>>>>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See below, which shows that the simulations performed by HHH 
>>>>>>>>>>> and HHH1 are identical up to the point that HHH aborts, as 
>>>>>>>>>>> you have agreed on the record.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> False.  The correct trace is the one I posted, which shows all 
>>>>>>>>> levels of emulation performed by HHH and HHH1.  See the 
>>>>>>>>> corrections I made to your comments
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is not supposed to do that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you saying it's not supposed to include /nested/ emulations? 
>>>>>>> It is perfectly sensible to include nested emulations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can include nested simulations yet nested
>>>>>> simulations are in a hierarchy thus not side-by-side.
>>>>>> A side-by-side analysis must be side-by-side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hierarchies can be compared side-by-side.  In the case of these 
>>>>> traces, the hierarchy can be "flattened" into one stream of nested 
>>>>> simulations. You do this yourself every time you present one of 
>>>>> your nested simulation traces.  Such a trace should include a 
>>>>> simulation depth (or equivalent) for each entry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two nested simulation traces can easily be presented side-by-side 
>>>>> for comparisson.  You are just trying to divert attention from your 
>>>>> own failings to properly understand the requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From the execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shown below*
>>>> 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
>>>> *HHH1 emulates DDD once then HHH emulates DDD once, these match*
>>>>
>>>> *Then HHH emulates itself emulating DDD, HHH1 NEVER DOES THIS*
>>>
>>> Because the correct emulation of the input doesn't call for this to 
>>> be done, and the identity of the emulator doesn't affect the 
>>> defintion of a correct emulation.
>>>
>>> That fact that NONE of your traces actually show a correct emulation, 
>>
>> I have corrected you on this hundreds of times and
>> you keep "forgetting" what I said.
>>
>>
> 
> That you have an "excuse" doesn't change the fact that the traces shown 
> are not correct.
> 

*No actual error has ever been pointed out*
One of the incoherent notions of error that you
have proposed is that a non-terminating input
was not simulated to completion.

> \Just because YOU are to stupid to make sense of the long report, 
> doesn't mean that it isn't factual, and NEEDED to make your point.
> 

As soon as I detect the first fatal error I quit reading.

> All you are doing is saying that logic needs to allow LYING for you to 
> understand it, likely because you have an inherent misunderstanding 
> about the nature of how truth and logic work.
> 
> Note, you can't even seem to keep seperate the trace of the execution of 
> the outer HHH from the trace that it sees from its emulation, which is 
> why the output is so long.
> 

There is no need for the 5226 pages of the traces of
HHH1 and HHH. As soon as main() calls HHH1(DDD) we can
know that HHH1(DDD) has been called.

> The problem is that you just don't understand what you are doing, and 
> are just hacking at a program you jury-rigged from an good open-source 
> prject that you hacked up to build your "proof" from, by figuing out how 
> to "edit" its output to show what you want.

Whenever you try to get specific then it is obvious
that all you have is incoherent gibberish.

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