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: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:52:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fba7d241edd4a6f8b765a152904b5c17c3d199c4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me> <v6ikv5$19h6q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jguf$1ctoi$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:52:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2743986"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6jguf$1ctoi$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3306
Lines: 55

On 7/9/24 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/9/2024 1:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-08 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>      stop running unless aborted then
>>>
>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>
>>>> Whether a partial simulation of DDD simulates the return depends
>>>> on the simulator.
>>>
>>> That is false proving that you have insufficient knowledge.
>>
>> It is true. There are partial simulators that do simulate D(I) to its 
>> termination (if it terminates) and there are simulators that don't.
>> That you cannot imagine something does not mean it can't exist.
>>
> 
> No pure function x86 emulator HHH can possibly emulate DDD
> to its termination.


Which is a different claim then that the DDD that the HHH emulated can't 
reach its return.

> 
> _DDD()
> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002174] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
> 
> *When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function*
> *HHH x86 emulator that can possibly exist* which calls
> an emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat this process until the
> emulated DDD is aborted.
> 
> At no point in this emulation does the call from DDD
> correctly emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD) ever return.
> 

Right, so the emulation by HHH never sees the return that DDD will do in 
the actual correct emulation of DDD by a REAL correct emulator that 
occurs after HHH aborts its emulaiton.

You just don't understand the fact that a partial emulation never 
actualy defines the behavior of the input machine after it stops its 
emulation.