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 18:54:59 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <1022jgj$3e610$1@dont-email.me>
References: <101khcl$3bfvj$6@dont-email.me> <101oee0$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>
 <1021hf0$3327l$5@dont-email.me>
 <8df4928973c30948ab744efcaaf4bf03223c4292@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2025 01:55:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a9517e45c46a9e6e81edd5eee2519f49";
	logging-data="3610656"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1//ycnDEDMWxuIMMzkGvO9L"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z3zJ/xZz0hcIOA+ZNqcS45g4/No=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <8df4928973c30948ab744efcaaf4bf03223c4292@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250607-6, 6/7/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/7/2025 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/7/25 10:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> No, it just that you don't seem to understand the concept that a partial 
> simulation not reaching a final state doesn't establish non-halting.
> 

*CAN'T POSSIBLY REACH A FINAL STATE DOES ESTABLISH NOT HALTING*

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