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 18:17:49 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2r3md$1vblq$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@dont-email.me> <v2pg3r$27s2r$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2qhlc$2dpfr$5@dont-email.me> <v2qihn$1vblq$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2qrnf$2fesr$3@dont-email.me> <v2qvar$1vblp$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v2r1dn$2ge4f$4@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 22:17:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2076346"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v2r1dn$2ge4f$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5202
Lines: 91

On 5/24/24 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/24/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/24/24 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2024 12:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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, 
>>>
>>> Yes you have a definition of simulation where the x86 machine
>>> language of D is simulated incorrectly or in the wrong order.
>>
>> Nope. The UTM definition still simulates EVERY x86 machine language 
>> instruction of D simulated correctly in the exact order. The added 
>> requirement is that we look at a simulation that is never aborted.
> 
> H is a pure function that always returns 56 at some point other
> than that H is isomorphic to a UTM.
> 

But it can't be, and you are shown to be a liar, as you assert that if H 
doesn't abort its simulation it never returns, so if it returns it 
aborted its simulation, and thus wasn't a UTM, as by definition, UTM 
don't abort their simulations until they get to a final state.

You are just proving how much of a STUPID PATHOLOGICAL LIAR you are, and 
that you just don't care if something is true or not, or if something 
can actually exist, you will just claim whatever lies you want to.