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 16:21:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2th7f$22aq0$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <v2tdrj$22aq1$8@i2pn2.org> <v2tghr$317f1$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 20:21:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2173760"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v2tghr$317f1$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10484
Lines: 205

On 5/25/24 4:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/25/2024 2:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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*
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========