Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<92ed3ec7626ca56b37e6f4c58c894d393857a412@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH diverges from DDD emulated by HHH1--- BEST
 ONE
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 07:11:37 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <92ed3ec7626ca56b37e6f4c58c894d393857a412@i2pn2.org>
References: <101khcl$3bfvj$6@dont-email.me> <101oeik$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>
 <1022jgj$3e610$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2025 11:23:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3812659"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1022jgj$3e610$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 6/7/25 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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*
> 

Right, but the subject of said proposition is the MACHINE, not a partial 
simulation of said machine.

For simulations to be used to show non-halting, you must show that even 
after an unbounded number of steps simulated, it never reaches a final 
state.

The finite number N steps that any of your HHH that reports non-halting 
does, is NOT a "Unbounded number", and thus your HHH is not a source of 
truth for that attribute.

Also, Halting (or Non-Halting) is only a property of PROGRAMS, something 
you admit that you DDD is not, so it is just a categorical error to 
talki about if your DDD halts or not.

Sorry, but you are just proving you stupidity.