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 21:51:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <v5ik3e$2i32s$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@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>
 <v5ijcs$17ej1$11@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:51:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6b7ddfe8775f34f568700240d9d1b";
	logging-data="2690140"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+f9wPTgZuWSx5kZeX0ljF1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:meZruSgmwzARU6w93xkN3f13pUE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5ijcs$17ej1$11@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 7681

On 6/26/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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", 

Is disabled. It is commented out.
It was only ever used so that humans could see the depth.

>> a decider shouldn't be 
> able to know that it isn't the top level decider.

This doesn't have any effect on its computation thus irrelevant.

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