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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in
 recursive simulation?
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 13:25:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2qihn$1vblq$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@dont-email.me> <v2pg3r$27s2r$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2qhlc$2dpfr$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 17:25:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2076346"; 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: <v2qhlc$2dpfr$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4104
Lines: 75

On 5/24/24 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2024 2:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 23.mei.2024 om 19:04 schreef olcott:
>>> 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       }
>>>
>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>> correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done because many
>>> reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which H/D pair
>>> was being referred to.
>>>
>>> *Correct Simulation Defined*
>>>     This is provided because every reviewer had a different notion of
>>>     correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>
>>>     A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates at least one
>>>     of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>     instructions of D.
>>>
>>>     This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in
>>>     the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D)
>>>     in recursive simulation.
>>>
>>> *Execution Trace*
>>>     Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D); H(D,D) simulates lines 01, 02, 
>>> and 03
>>>     of D. This invokes H(D,D) again to repeat the process in endless
>>>     recursive simulation.
>>>
>>
>> Of course this depends very much on the exact meaning of 'correct 
>> simulation', or 'correctly emulating'. 
> 
> Not when these are defined above.
> 
>> E.g., take the call to H(p, p). If H recognizes that it is a call to a 
>> H with the same algorithm as is it using itself, and it knows that 
>> itself returns a certain integer value K, than it can be argued that 
>> it is a correct emulation to substitute the call to H with this 
>> integer value K, which is assigned to Halt_Status. Then the simulation 
>> of D can proceed to line 04.
>> What we need is an exact definition of 'correct simulation', in this 
> 
> No, you simply need to pay complete attention to the fact that this
> has already been provided.
> 
> I have been over the exact same issue with dozens and dozen of people
> though hundreds and hundreds of messages over two years.

Excpet that we have two contradictory definitions present, one as the 
one you define, and the second as to the one that allows the relating of 
a simulation that doesn't reach an end to a non-halting program.

Thus, you DON'T have an exact USABLE definition, you have presented a 
system that just LIES.


> 
>> case for the call instruction. Is it allowed to make assumptions for 
>> the result of a call, or is a call only correctly emulated by 
>> simulating the instructions of the called function?
>