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: III correctly emulated by EEE ---
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 13:38:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <76e394abe71be9cdc7f1948e73352c4f76ae409e@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrgme1$2tr56$1@dont-email.me>
 <vri5mn$6nv4$1@dont-email.me>
 <8354fe5751e03a767452a3999818d5c6da714a6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrigh6$f35v$1@dont-email.me> <vrj6d3$14iuu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjog0$1ilbe$6@dont-email.me>
 <db8aa67218b2a0990cd1df38aca29dbd3930e145@i2pn2.org>
 <vrkumg$2l2ci$2@dont-email.me>
 <ba957e964c1090cbb801b1688b951ac095281737@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmepa$2r2l$1@dont-email.me>
 <d8ee6d675850304b99af1b587437ba0ac64dbb85@i2pn2.org>
 <vrms64$cvat$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 17:38:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1303155"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vrms64$cvat$2@dont-email.me>

On 3/22/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/22/2025 11:37 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:43:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>     HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>>> }
>>> There is no program DDD in the above code.
>> There is also no Infinite_Recursion.
>>
>>> Since no Turing machine M can ever compute the mapping from the behavior
>>> of any directly executed TM2 referring to the behavior of the directly
>>> executed DDD has always been incorrect. Halt Deciders always report on
>>> the behavior that their input finite string specifies.
> 
>> Please explain what behaviour the description of a TM "specifies",
>> and which TM the input describes.
>>
> 
> "Bill sang a song" describes what Bill did.
> A tape recording of Bill singing that same
> song completely specifies what Bill did.

And what a UTM does with this input completely specifies its behavior,

> 
>>> In every case that does not involve pathological self-reference the
>>> behavior that the finite string specifies is coincidentally the same
>>> behavior as the direct execution of the corresponding machine. The
>>> actual measure, however, has always been the behavior that the finite
>>> string input specifies.
>> ...which is the direct execution. Not much of a coincidence.
>>
> 
> _III()
> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III)
> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
> [00002183] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
> 
> When-so-ever any correct emulator EEE correctly emulates
> a finite number of steps of an input III that calls this
> same emulator to emulate itself the behavior of the direct
> execution of III will not be the same as the behavior of
> the emulated III.
> 

Becuase a finite emulation that stop before the end is not a correct 
emulation of the thing, but just the first part of that emulation.

THus, we see that just because a partial emulation doesn't reach the 
final state, we can not say that the COMPLETE and correct emulation of 
that exact same input doesn't halt.

Note. the input III must include the exact version of EEE that it is 
calling, and the complete emulation will be of III calling THAT EEE, 
since that is what the input was.