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.