Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 15:23:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2tdrj$22aq1$8@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1iqli$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>
 <v2sn2j$22aq0$1@i2pn2.org> <v2t954$2vna0$4@dont-email.me>
 <v2t9th$22aq1$4@i2pn2.org> <v2tal8$2vna0$7@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 19:23:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2173761"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v2tal8$2vna0$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8760
Lines: 165

On 5/25/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2024 1:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/25/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/25/2024 7:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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 all explained in my reply to Mike.
>>> If you want to talk about it there
>>> (1) Do not link to comp.theory
>>>
>>> (2) Do not talk about anything outside the scope of
>>>      the semantics of c
>>>
>>> (3) Do not talk about anything outside the scope of the subject
>>>    of the thread:
>>>    [D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot
>>>     possibly reach its own line 06]
>>>
>>> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv2t859%242vna0%241%40dont-email.me%3E
>>>
>>
>> And where in that statement did anyone say that the correct simulation 
>> of D by H did not require the simulation of the instructions of D 
>> correctly or in the correct order specifid byu D.
>>
> 
> *Go look and see for yourself*
> *Go look and see for yourself*
> *Go look and see for yourself*
> *Go look and see for yourself*
> 

I did. I didn't see ANY mention of anything like what you claim.


I guess this is just another case of Olcott lying about what someone 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========