Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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 22:39:24 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5ijcs$17ej1$11@i2pn2.org>
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>
 <v5igku$17ej0$5@i2pn2.org>
 <XpCdnbOhAMLeVOH7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@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 02:39:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1292897"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <XpCdnbOhAMLeVOH7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6796
Lines: 127

On 6/26/24 10:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/06/2024 02:52, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/26/24 9:30 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.
>>>
>>
>> Would need to look closer at the code, but I bet that the simulated 
>> machine is looking into the trace buffer to see if it is simulated or 
>> not.
> 
> Has PO published the C code for the trace?  Anyhow, given that its in 
> Init_Halts_HH(), I expect its a global area being initialised - probably 
> the global trace table.
> 
>>
>> In effect, it is misusing static memory just like he says isn't allowed.
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
> Mike.
> 
He published the source code of at least his earlier code, and I suspect 
he hasn't made major changes to it. I forget it it was a zip file on his 
server or a Github repository.

THe code for Init_Halts_HH() is:


u32 Init_Halts_HH(u32**                   Aborted,
                   u32**                   execution_trace,
                   Decoded_Line_Of_Code**  decoded,
                   u32*                    code_end,
                   u32                     P,
                   Registers**             master_state,
                   Registers**             slave_state,
                   u32**                   slave_stack)
{
   *decoded      = (Decoded_Line_Of_Code*) 
Allocate(sizeof(Decoded_Line_Of_Code));
   *code_end     = get_code_end(P);
   *master_state = (Registers*) Allocate(sizeof(Registers));
   *slave_state  = (Registers*) Allocate(sizeof(Registers));
   *slave_stack  = Allocate(0x10000); // 64k
   Output((char*)"New slave_stack at:", (u32)*slave_stack);
   if (**execution_trace == 0x90909090)
   {
//  Global_Recursion_Depth = 0;
     **Aborted = 0;
     **execution_trace = (u32)Allocate(sizeof(Decoded_Line_Of_Code) * 
10000);
     Output((char*)"\nBegin Local Halt Decider Simulation   "
            "Execution Trace Stored at:", **execution_trace);
     return 1;
   }
   return 0;
}


Note the mention of "Global_Recursion_Depth", a decider shouldn't be 
able to know that it isn't the top level decider.