Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH diverges from DDD emulated by HHH1
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 07:35:49 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <70d1776156ec882297d78ca8e85a15956b4835a8@i2pn2.org>
References: <101khcl$3bfvj$6@dont-email.me> <101njgb$7qau$3@dont-email.me>
 <4113b5c3cb0e33212819ef36a4de858e40e70cba@i2pn2.org>
 <101noka$8rb8$4@dont-email.me> <101o96g$db96$3@dont-email.me>
 <101ob1t$hd6o$3@dont-email.me> <101obrf$hlr6$1@dont-email.me>
 <101ocan$hd6o$6@dont-email.me> <101ochl$i3m6$1@dont-email.me>
 <101oda2$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 11:42:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3388420"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <101qsfp$15bg8$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US

On 6/4/25 9:39 PM, 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.
> 
> It is supposed to show
> the emulation of DDD by HHH1 and
> the emulation of DDD by HHH
> side-by-side to show the point where these
> emulations diverge.

But both of those, to be correct, need to follow the execution path INTO 
HHH and show the operation of that code.

Since both of your "emulations" fail to do that, you are just basing 
your answers on lies.

> 
> 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
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH emulating itself
> [00002183] push ebp      ;
> [00002184] mov ebp,esp   ;
> [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD
> [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH
> 


So, even by your error in definition, the fact that HHH1 "emulated" how 
HHH would emulated DDD, and goes FARTHER to see that HHH *WILL* abort 
and return 0, gets the right answer.

HHH on the other hand, when it sees the next layer, improperly just 
gives up and assumes that it won't ever stop, but since the HHH being 
emulated *IS* the HHH that does abort and return, if we look at the 
CORRECT emulation of the input to HHH, it would do the same thing that 
HHH1 say, and that the correct answer is HALTING.

Your problem is you lie to yourself and think that the thought 
experement of asking what if THIS HHH didn't abort at this point, but 
continued to emulate THIS INPUT (of a program, that includes the code 
that IS there, which is the HHH that does abort and return) it sees just 
what HHH1 does.

Your problem is you LIE to yourself that you can look at category errors 
and change what the code is that is given as the input.

SOrry, you are just proving your utter stupidity.