Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Sat, 25 May 2024 07:09:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <v2skde$2s65h$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$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>
 <v2l0q8$17mu1$1@dont-email.me> <v2n4f7$1ms87$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2nfma$1or9h$4@dont-email.me> <v2pkqq$28mg0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2qhr2$2dpfr$6@dont-email.me> <v2s6kk$2q0pf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 14:09:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="010db72b80f31f696ef17c51994f71bb";
	logging-data="3020977"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UEtbB0i2GAurFCJNUo9IL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7/UfRNlloOai0iBtV6MpRFEpMuM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2s6kk$2q0pf$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6913

On 5/25/2024 3:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-24 17:13:05 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/24/2024 3:58 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-23 13:18:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/23/2024 5:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-22 14:51:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe but I don't promise that the response to the incorrect answer
>>>>> will sound the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you mean that H cannot simulate D to the line 06 then say so.
>>>>> A D that is simulated by H is D and so is a D that is not simulated
>>>>> by H so both can do what a D can do. Saying "simulated by H" adds
>>>>> nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think that the meaning of "correctly simulate" is not
>>>>> important you should not use those words.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I must use those words or a standard of incorrect simulation
>>>> is assumed.
>>>
>>> There is no "standard of incorrect simulation".
>>>
>>>> We have been going over the term "correct simulation"
>>>> in these forums with dozens of people and hundreds of messages
>>>> over several years.
>>>
>>> That alone is a sufficient reaston to avoid the expression.
>>>
>>>> CORRECT SIMULATION DEFINED
>>>>    In the above case 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.
>>>
>>> That is not a definition but perhaps a suffient substitute for 
>>> paractical
>>> purposes.
>>>
>>
>> It provides a clear and correct criterion measure to utterly
>> refute each and every reviewer that tries to get away with
>> the incorrect emulation of the x86 instructions of H or D or
>> emulating them in the wrong order.
> 
> You may call it a "diagnostic criterion" or just a "criterion" but
> it does not define anything. Whether it is clear or sufficient is
> another problem.
> 

For over two years I had two dozen people unified in consensus
continue to insist that a correct simulation of D by H did not
require emulating the x86 machine language instructions of D
correctly or in the correct order specified by D.

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