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: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 07:34:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5jino$19368$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@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> <v5iht1$2hkk4$4@dont-email.me>
 <v5ijd6$17ej1$12@i2pn2.org> <v5ikch$2i32s$3@dont-email.me>
 <v5ilgq$17ej1$13@i2pn2.org> <v5imde$2ie27$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:34:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1346760"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5imde$2ie27$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4849
Lines: 83

On 6/26/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/26/2024 10:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/26/24 10:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2024 9:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nope, they use virtual memory provided by the UTM.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That *is* what it *is* doing.
>>> The UTM gets this from x86utm.
>>> The slaves use the already allocated memory.
>>
>> But they don't get to use the same memory that the simulator 
>> simulating them is using, as that leaks information that they don't 
>> get to know.
>>
> 
> The information flow is only upward.

Obviously not if it affect the behavior of the inner layers to make them 
not allocate a new buffer.

> 
>> They have a memory buffer (as far as they see) that starts empty, and 
>> they put data in it, and they take data out, and only what they put in 
>> is ever there,
>>
> 
> This is what is intended, and how it actually works.

Then how do they know not to create the buffer?

> 
>>>
>>>> They write to what they consider to be their tape, and the UTM 
>>>> figures out how to store that on its tape to be able to give it back 
>>>> when requested.
>>>>
>>> That is already what it does.
>>
>> But if the simulated machine can see that there is a layer outside 
>> them, then it isn't correct.
>>
> It need not see this and my algorithm still works.

Then take it out. That might help you get the output of just the 
simulation that the decider is doing, and not have it mixed in with the 
trace of that simulators execution, as you claim to have.

> 
>>>
>>>> Of course, you never understood the need for putting the simulated 
>>>> machine in its own virtual memory space.
>>>
>>> I have been doing that for 3.5 years.
>>> It has its own stack registers and RAM.
>>>
>>> The machine code is the same code, yet executed
>>> as a separate process.
>>>
>>
>> Then what does the "global" comment mean, every simulator should think 
>> it is the globally top level simulator, and be simulating the simulator 
> 
> That was so that humans could see the level in an
> output message. I don't use that anymore. It is disabled.

But what we need to see is the simulation done by the top level decider, 
and it alone.

> 
>> of the next level down (not doing that simulators simulation), so no 
>> simulator has "levels" in it for its own simulation.
> 
>  From the master UTM's perspective there is one more level
> before it sees the infinite recursion behavior pattern.
> 

Nope. Your "Master UTM" isn't doing its job right if it is doing that. 
Its job is to just run the machine it was given. That machine needs to 
do the job IT was given, and so on. The lower level emulators can't use 
the "master UTM", as they can't know it exists, so they need to use 
there own instance of the same code (it may be physically the same code, 
but with a TOTALLY new data space (and no shared statics).