Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Sun, 26 May 2024 11:50:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 171
Message-ID: <v2vp8f$3g0m3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$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> <v2uthd$3bjch$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2vdkp$3dtct$3@dont-email.me> <v2vned$3fl3r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 18:50:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b67ec24a85de95a55e6b4d0cc81926c3";
	logging-data="3670723"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19nsVYlkKRCRM+4hA30LNSX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TOb21BDO+ZhnMqPj3Ve/i5FRcMg=
In-Reply-To: <v2vned$3fl3r$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9153

On 5/26/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-26 13:32:08 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/26/2024 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-25 12:09:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Is the disagreement about the meaning of "correct" or "simulation"
>>> or some other word, or is the disagreement about correctness of the
>>> simulation?
>>>
>>
>>     A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
>>     x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
>>     of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>>     emulating D.
>>
>> People disagree with the above definition.
> 
> Then you may ask what other word would be better instead of "simulator".
> 
>> They believe that a correct
>> simulation requires H to report on the computation that itself is
>> contained within:
> 
> Why should the term "simulation" imply anything about reporting?
> 

There you go an actual mistake that I made.
I will phrase what I mean more accurately.

Everyone reviewing my work agrees that D correctly simulated by H should
simulate the behavior of the directly executed  D(D) thus not the actual
behavior of D correctly simulated by pure function H.

When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never reaches its
own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly
simulated steps.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========