Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH diverges from DDD emulated by HHH1
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 17:26:20 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <48c29c78abf789d7974ffeb9d4fbab2132265627@i2pn2.org>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2025 17:26:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3566193"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

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.

>>>> 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.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.