Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v2vqoo$26570$4@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Sun, 26 May 2024 13:16:08 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v2vqoo$26570$4@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> <v2uthd$3bjch$1@dont-email.me> <v2vdkp$3dtct$3@dont-email.me> <v2vned$3fl3r$1@dont-email.me> <v2vp8f$3g0m3$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 17:16:08 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2299104"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <v2vp8f$3g0m3$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 9600 Lines: 182 On 5/26/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. And how can that differ? The only differance that I see is that H doesn't get to see all of the behavior of the D it is simulating, ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========