Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:50:12 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <aa07d6c60db9cabc05449362f5d7efcc6e2bb444@i2pn2.org>
References: <v5vkun$1b0k9$1@dont-email.me> <v60dci$1ib5p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v60red$1kr1q$2@dont-email.me> <v61hn7$1oec9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v61ipa$1og2o$2@dont-email.me> <v61jod$1oec9$2@dont-email.me>
 <v61leu$1p1uo$1@dont-email.me>
 <dd109397687b2f8e74c3e1e3d826772db8b65e40@i2pn2.org>
 <v62i31$21b7a$1@dont-email.me> <v632ta$23ohm$2@dont-email.me>
 <v63jej$26loi$6@dont-email.me> <v63s4h$28goi$2@dont-email.me>
 <v63s92$28dpi$3@dont-email.me>
 <e7e50b27b2f0df2cbd65f7dbafa975f597b8ce78@i2pn2.org>
 <v665vj$2oun1$11@dont-email.me>
 <a9f31a178ec10c3a25aa7e03c2574cb3ad01d1c9@i2pn2.org>
 <v6688q$2pc84$1@dont-email.me>
 <c1f8cd395cbc33748f6b82112a1a26fe5df15da1@i2pn2.org>
 <v66gqc$2qr6f$2@dont-email.me>
 <83a2ddb381b16ac04f10a99c0420bbf61e32fbed@i2pn2.org>
 <v66ikm$2r26d$3@dont-email.me>
 <c8e99a20769f01b994329c64d58090e8c21a3486@i2pn2.org>
 <v66jie$2r26d$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 16:50:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2132706"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v66jie$2r26d$6@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4532
Lines: 63

On 7/4/24 12:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 11:29:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/4/2024 11:24 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 10:58:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 7/4/2024 10:03 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 08:32:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 8:09 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 04 Jul 2024 07:53:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/4/2024 6:09 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:55:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2024 10:52 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, if you think that HHH can simulate itself correctly,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>              int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>>>>>>              int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>              {
>>>>>>>>>>>>                return H(main, 0);
>>>>>>>>>>>>              }
>>>>>>>>>>>> You showed that H returns, but that the simulation thinks it
>>>>>>>>>>>> does not return.
>>>>>>>>>>> main correctly emulated by H never stops running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>> As a matter of fact, H does abort it. H then returns to main,
>>>>>>>>>> which then stops running.
>>>>>>>>> main correctly simulated by H never returns.
>>>>>>>> I was talking about main itself.
>>>>>>> That is not the one that HHH examines.
>>>>>> Huh? HHH examines main. Sure, it doesn’t /simulate/ the return.
>>> The x86utm operating system spawns a separate process so that
>>> H can emulate another different instance of D in this separate process.
>>> H must call DebugTrace()
>>> to switch process contexts to emulate one more instruction of D.
> 
>> Oh, there should also be different instances of H.
>>
> There are. DDD and the HHH that DDD calls are in the
> same process context. The DDD that the emulated HHH
> emulates is in another process context.

But identical programs, even in different (but equivalent) execution 
conttexts will do the same thing.

> 
>>>>> There is more than one main() process. One of them cannot possibly
>>>>> halt and the other one halts.
>>>> That makes no sense. They have exactly the same code.
>>> It makes no sense only if you are totally clueless of operating system
>>> process contexts.
> 
>> What is their difference?
>>
> 
> When the directly executed DDD calls HHH(DDD) the
> DDD that HHH emulates is in an entirely different
> process context. The first one halts only because
> HHH correctly determines that its DDD does not halt.
> 

But the exact same code.

I guess you don't understand that the same code with the same inputs 
generates the same results.

That is a fundamental property that we depend upon to run all our programs.