Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved
 criteria is met
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:04:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <v5ihc3$2hkk4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me> <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me>
 <v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me> <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org> <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de> <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
 <v5el8c$24l4$4@news.muc.de> <v5evoi$1lgoi$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5frvn$14bcm$6@i2pn2.org> <v5ft1p$1uc3o$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5fu24$14bcn$2@i2pn2.org> <v5fuf7$1up2o$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5fvvk$14bcn$4@i2pn2.org> <v5g1ue$1v8bm$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5g29u$14bcm$11@i2pn2.org> <v5g2nd$1v8bm$4@dont-email.me>
 <v5gsfv$15l89$2@i2pn2.org> <v5h5sd$24jbd$10@dont-email.me>
 <v5i8v9$17ej1$2@i2pn2.org> <v5i998$2cko8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5i9ot$17ej0$3@i2pn2.org> <v5ib7n$2cko8$4@dont-email.me>
 <v5ichc$17ej1$8@i2pn2.org>
 <5nSdnSkMN76jIOH7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <yumdnWJaTZk7XeH7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:04:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6b7ddfe8775f34f568700240d9d1b";
	logging-data="2675332"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KNyULgFXknd+IjmxN4I0V"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fug577ePvnxKwAMRifG5Ech4Vvs=
In-Reply-To: <yumdnWJaTZk7XeH7nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5131

On 6/26/2024 8:30 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2024 02:15, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 27/06/2024 01:42, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/26/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is not the way that it actually works.
>>>>>>>>>> That the the way that lies are defined.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Source for you claim?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the 
>>>>>>>>> system to that claim?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret
>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I already told you that example does not count.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't keep repeating those details or others
>>>>>> that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is
>>>>>> will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WHy not?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have already been over that you know that you cheated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, since you didn't put in the rule, and if you had it would have 
>>> shown that you lied, as if H0 is a pure function then the call to H0 
>>> emulated by H0 needs to have the same behaivor as the direct call to 
>>> H0 by main.
>>
>> Incidentally, the nonconformance you're referring to is shown 
>> explicitly in the "195 page trace" that PO linked to.  [I.e. the 
>> simulated H does not correctly track the code path of the outer H.]
> 
> I suppose I should have made clear, that's not simply due to the 
> simulated H being aborted.  There is an instruction in H:   [actually, 
> in Init_Halts_HH()]
> 
> [000012e4] 753b jnz 00001321
> 
> and in outer H control proceeds to 000012e6  [i.e. branch not taken],
> whilein simulated H control proceeds to 00001321  [i.e. branch taken]
> 
> 
> Mike.
> 


It *is* legitimate for the master UTM to share its own
tape with its slave UTM's and in fact this is the ONLY
way that slave UTMs can get any tape space.

I may not have implemented that as purely as possible
yet for actual UTMs this *is* the way that it works.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer