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: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###
Date: Sat, 25 May 2024 08:54:43 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2sn2j$22aq0$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@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>
 <v2skde$2s65h$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 12:54:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2173760"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2skde$2s65h$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7159
Lines: 129

On 5/25/24 8:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

WHERE?

This is just anothor of your LIE.

After all, YOUR H that you published didn't do this, as it didn't 
actually simulate teh call to H as following the x86 instructions of H.

Just look at ANY of the traces you have published. Did ANY of them show 
ANY of the instrucitons in H?