Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 21:15:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e1fac79c589edb68a1fa45e7ec490a49b3e603ad@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vs6t10$2p360$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs70tc$39556$21@dont-email.me> <vs71bq$2p360$10@dont-email.me>
 <vs76m9$3m3q0$1@dont-email.me> <vs77th$2p360$11@dont-email.me>
 <vs78cu$3ms9k$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2b91231b9052e07b6705250938fb9095e711327@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7kvf$3eal$2@dont-email.me>
 <aeb75b411e9f77c974585181c671a47d03b22078@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7qdm$8dae$2@dont-email.me> <vs7r9b$8ajp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs92l3$1fccq$5@dont-email.me> <vs93ae$1k9u2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs9g5p$1v2n9$5@dont-email.me> <vs9gcg$20g2j$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs9h9o$23cav$2@dont-email.me> <vs9hh3$20g2j$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs9jie$23cav$4@dont-email.me> <vs9kb1$26cg5$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9pni$27rl4$9@dont-email.me>
 <3ade9e84224ba9b99c7363e0e9b69181804b7daa@i2pn2.org>
 <vsc2fd$1vihj$2@dont-email.me>
 <e1da7d564873d36f88e119fbbbdafd8c6b0f675e@i2pn2.org>
 <vsc9o7$2bk3d$2@dont-email.me> <vsdkq5$3rdgv$1@dont-email.me>
 <vselj9$th5g$1@dont-email.me> <vsg0tj$2e09c$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsht0a$90ss$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 01:15:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2747098"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vsht0a$90ss$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6166
Lines: 104

On 4/1/25 7:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/1/2025 1:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-31 18:06:35 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 3/31/2025 3:47 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-30 20:32:07 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/30/2025 1:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/30/25 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 3:12 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:46:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 3:14 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We can know that when this adapted UTM simulates a finite 
>>>>>>>>>>> number of
>>>>>>>>>>> steps of its input that this finite number of steps were 
>>>>>>>>>>> simulated
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly.
>>>>>>>>>> And therefore does not do a correct UTM simulation that 
>>>>>>>>>> matches the
>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the direct execution as it is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>> It is dishonest to expect non-terminating inputs to complete.
>>>>>>>> A complete simulation of a nonterminating input doesn't halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) changing the input is not allowed
>>>>>>>>>>> The input is unchanged. There never was any indication that 
>>>>>>>>>>> the input
>>>>>>>>>>> was in any way changed.
>>>>>>>>>> False, if the starting function calls UTM and UTM changes, you're
>>>>>>>>>> changing the input.
>>>>>>>>> When UTM1 is a UTM that has been adapted to only simulate a finite
>>>>>>>>> number of steps
>>>>>>>> So not an UTM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and input D calls UTM1 then the behavior of D simulated
>>>>>>>>> by UTM1 never reaches its final halt state.
>>>>>>>>> When D is simulated by ordinary UTM2 that D does not call Then 
>>>>>>>>> D reaches
>>>>>>>>> its final halt state.
>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter if it calls it, but if the UTM halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>>>>>>> I never changed the input. D always calls UTM1.
>>>>>>>>> thus is the same input to UTM1 as it is to UTM2.
>>>>>>>> You changed UTM1, which is part of the input D.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UTM1 simulates D that calls UTM1
>>>>>>> simulated D NEVER reaches final halt state
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UTM2 simulates D that calls UTM1
>>>>>>> simulated D ALWAYS reaches final halt state
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only because UTM1 isn't actually a UTM, but a LIE since it only 
>>>>>> does a partial simulation, not a complete as REQURIED by the 
>>>>>> definition of a UTM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>
>>>>> DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES SPECIFY THAT IT
>>>>> CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL HALT STATE.
>>>>
>>>> No, it does not. HHH misintepretes, contrary to the semantics of x86,
>>>> the specification to mean that.
>>>
>>> It is a truism that a correct x86 emulator
>>> would emulate itself emulating DDD whenever
>>> DDD calls this emulator with itself.
>>
>> Irrelevant. You didn't say anything about a correct emulator or 
>> emulation.
>>
> 
> Sure all trolls would agree that when-so-ever a statement
> is made many dozens of time this proves that this statement
> was never said.
> 
> When-so-ever a finite number of steps of x86 machine
> code have been emulated according to the semantics
> of the x86 language then these steps have been
> emulated correctly even if God himself disagrees.
> 

And the number of times you have INCORRECTLY claimed that you partial 
simulator did a correct emulation just shows how much of a liar you are.

Partial emulation just isn't "Correct Emulation" when the question is 
about the final behavior of the system.

I guess you think driving one mile down a road, and then taking the exit 
allows you to say that the road must be infinite in length because you 
didn't reach the end.

That is an exact analogy to your claim, which just shows how stupid you are.