Path: ...!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 21:35:34 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <v5ij5m$2hkk4$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$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>
 <v5ihc3$2hkk4$2@dont-email.me>
 <aNadnXs_e77nVuH7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@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 04:35:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6b7ddfe8775f34f568700240d9d1b";
	logging-data="2675332"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++2Q5Uwhjb+aYVqpjtCqm1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MY48JW1q7ArNrULRBbnRAT5wrxw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <aNadnXs_e77nVuH7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Bytes: 6051

On 6/26/2024 9:16 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2024 03:04, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> No it's not.  (To both points.  The UTM will obviously /use/ its tape in 
> its implementation of the VTM. 

In other words I am wrong except that I am correct.

> It does not "share" its own tape with 
> what its simulated computation.  

It can look at any portion of the slave's internal state
because the slave's internal state is writing to its own tape.

> The latter has no knowledge of being 
> simulated and behaves exactly as the directly executed computation.)
> 

Of course. Yet the master can see every detail of the slave's
internal trace table by definition because it can see EVERYTHING
of the slave's ENTIRE internal state.

> Mike.
> 
>>
>> 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