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: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Using
 Finite String Transformations
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 18:20:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a366285e067d76eaf85a8bdd9170e398631c1578@i2pn2.org>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vto7qu$267in$1@dont-email.me>
 <k%RLP.1232047$Xb1.539402@fx05.ams4> <vtorpb$2uac$1@news.muc.de>
 <vtp32o$2vb5o$1@dont-email.me> <vtqpt5$17ns$1@news.muc.de>
 <vtrhbc$16pbv$2@dont-email.me> <vtrk7l$t44$1@news.muc.de>
 <vtrmfa$1be3n$1@dont-email.me> <vtvkgo$vjvi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu2042$34l74$1@dont-email.me> <vu519u$1s5f9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu6aha$2vn05$3@dont-email.me> <vu6dk4$2fq2$1@news.muc.de>
 <vu6knm$394oo$1@dont-email.me> <vu8cgm$2p5e$1@news.muc.de>
 <vu8gml$v0qa$2@dont-email.me> <vu8m2h$vn9b$2@dont-email.me>
 <vu8pr1$13jl5$8@dont-email.me> <vu8qo3$vn9b$4@dont-email.me>
 <vu8ruc$13jl5$12@dont-email.me> <vuaaae$2lbp9$2@dont-email.me>
 <zIWdnaZKufSzmpT1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vub1go$3clpn$3@dont-email.me>
 <HcWcnf7heZkdG5T1nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vucbg5$mukj$1@dont-email.me> <vucro3$148pf$2@dont-email.me>
 <vudtd9$23cvv$1@dont-email.me> <vue2k4$27hl3$2@dont-email.me>
 <vue4gn$28iho$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 23:25:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1749012"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vue4gn$28iho$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 4/24/25 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/24/2025 2:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 24.apr.2025 om 19:46 schreef olcott:
>>> On 4/24/2025 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 24.apr.2025 om 05:34 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 4/23/2025 7:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...because HHH stops simulating before reaching that step in the 
>>>>>> computation.  Note that I said
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MT:  Both traces were of course /identical/,
>>>>>>       *up to the point where HHH stops simulating*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I was factually correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It *is not* up to the point where HHH stops simulating.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is up to the point where the simulated versus directly
>>>>> executed calls HHH(DD).
>>>>>
>>>> That is exactly the same point. If not, show the difference in the 
>>>> traces before that point.
>>>
>>> As soon as the directly executed DD calls HHH(DD) this
>>> call immediately returns.
>>>
>>> When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) then HHH emulates
>>> DD and also emulates itself emulating DD. This is one
>>> whole recursive emulation than the directly executed
>>> DD can possibly get to.
> 
>> Again a lot of words, which hide that you cannot show where the traces 
>> differ up to that point.
> 
> THEY DIFFER BY THE EMULATED DD REACHES RECURSIVE EMULATION
> AND THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED DD NEVER DOES.
> 

And what instruction says that per the x86 instruction language?

Your failure to answer just proves you know you are lying.