Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 09:51:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <v2l0q8$17mu1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1cla9$34iis$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1d2mi$9f72$11@i2pn2.org> <v1di1h$3b2m5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1dtdv$3dqg4$1@dont-email.me> <v1du2i$3dt7u$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1fetd$3s7jo$1@dont-email.me> <v1ft42$3vdau$2@dont-email.me>
 <-5Gdnf-nQvstC6b7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v1gid8$4ilc$1@dont-email.me> <v1h9eu$9faf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1iqli$nsva$1@dont-email.me> <v1ln3c$vfh$1@news.muc.de>
 <v1s6e6$397iq$2@dont-email.me> <v1slmi$3cjtp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1t8tt$3gu9t$3@dont-email.me> <v1vc8j$3jmr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vsru$7eqc$1@dont-email.me> <v21r4i$otc2$2@dont-email.me>
 <v22k4b$umr4$1@dont-email.me> <v24oah$1h4u3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v256fc$1kais$1@dont-email.me> <v27d05$25ga0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2838r$29rd7$1@dont-email.me> <v2a8th$2ps09$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2ahqc$2qvr9$1@dont-email.me> <v2cb5s$39fvg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2crk0$3cifp$1@dont-email.me> <v2cvuo$3dfkm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2i921$jvcs$5@dont-email.me> <v2k7fe$12vjm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 16:51:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9557ecc38a2c6e613b1947df9dd7fc56";
	logging-data="1301441"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/AWa+8yM++/KurXoc7WF7U"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1HpM4VXhHN/ucraSgKOf92IYuG0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2k7fe$12vjm$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5535

On 5/22/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-21 13:54:09 +0000, olcott said:
>> You are asking for the definition of correct simulation
>> that I have been providing for quite a while recently.
> 
> That was not my main intent. I wanted to know why your
> statement
> 
>>>>>>>> No D simulated correctly by any H of every H/D pair specified
>>>>>>>> by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and halts.
> 
> exludes every unsimulated or incorrectly simulated D?
> 

That sounds like Richard that assumed that incorrect answers are OK
unless I specifically say that incorrect answers are not OK.

On 5/19/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/19/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
 >> Richard has stated that he thinks that an example of
 >> {D never simulated by H} ∈ {every D simulated by H}
 >
 > No, the H that didn't simulate its input shows that
 > *once you allow H to not be required to be correct*,
 > that we can then have a trivial function that is
 > "just as correct" (since wrong answers were allowed).

>> A c function is correctly simulated when its machine language
>> instructions are emulated with an x86 emulator in the order
>> that they are specified by the x86 machine language of this
>> c function.
> 
> Does "its machine language instructions" mean all executed instructions
> until the progam terminates? Or from the start of the program until
> there is no reason to continue? Or from some point to some other point?
> 

It means that 1 to N instructions of D are correctly simulated
by pure function H. Because D correctly simulated by H remains
stuck in recursive simulation D cannot possibly reach is own
line 06 and halt.

>> For non-terminating functions we can only correctly
>> simulate N machine language instructions.
> 
> But does you definition regard that partial simulation as "correct
> simulation"?
> 

When 1 to 2^64 instructions of D are correctly simulated by H
it becomes clear that for every H/D pair of the infinite set
of H/D pairs D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive
simulation.

>> For the H/D pair we can simulate 1 to N instructions of D that
>> results in 0 to M recursive simulations of H simulating itself
>> simulating D.
> 
> But is this kind of recursive simulation "correc"? Does "correct"
> apply to ("correctly" or otherwise) simulated simulations? Does
> correctness of simulation of simulation depend on the oorrectness
> of simulated simulation?
> 

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int D(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
08
09       int main()
10       {
11         H(D,D);
12         return 0;
13       }

When talking about an infinite set of H/D pairs...
A c function is correctly simulated when its machine language
instructions are emulated with an x86 emulator in the order that
they are specified by the x86 machine language of this c function.

For terminating inputs the input is simulated until termination.

This applies to every H/D pair of the infinite set of H/D pairs
matching the above template:

Every D correctly simulated by pure by function H remains stuck in
recursive simulation and can never reach its own line 06 and halt.




-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer