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: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:35:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <v5jpq8$2o58l$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v45tec$4q15$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> <v5ik3e$2i32s$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5iliq$17ej1$14@i2pn2.org> <v5imki$2ie27$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5jinm$19368$2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:35:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6b7ddfe8775f34f568700240d9d1b";
	logging-data="2888981"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1putWv2x/5DC2Tf3lqhWr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2hfqHG12sDwQlC93jXu4cVd/90s=
In-Reply-To: <v5jinm$19368$2@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5879

On 6/27/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/26/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/26/2024 10:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/26/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is disabled. It is commented out.
>>>> It was only ever used so that humans could see the depth.
>>>
>>> But, if it can measure the fact that this is the top level decider, 
>>> that means that it sees something that it can't know.
>>>
>>
>> The top level decider simply reaches its infinite
>> recursion behavior pattern first. It need not know
>> that it is first.
>>
> 
> But it if abortts, then the pattern ISN'T infinite recursion,

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}

It is the exact same code that recognizes this as non-halting
SO IT IS THE INFINITE RECURSION BEHAVIOR PATTERN AS A MATTER OF FACT.

>  as a 
> correct emulation of the code it was emulating will have finite behaivior.
> 

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}

Only in the same way and for the same reason that Infinite_Loop()
and Infinite_Recursion() have finite behavior. H0 stops simulating
them because it correctly determines that they would not otherwise
stop.

> You can't have an infinite level of recursion in a finite number of steps.
> 
> Your problem is your emulator doesn't look at the program it is actually 
> given, but thinks of it as something different.
> 
Liar.

> Remember, either it can't look past the call instruction as there is 
> nothing there to look at, or the code after the call instruction is part 
> of the input, and thus you can't think about changing it and still 
> having the same input.
> 
Unless the outermost H0(DDD) aborts none of them do. The
outermost one reaches its abort criteria one recursive
emulation before the next one.

> 
>>> EVERY level of dicider should think that it is, or at least could be, 
>>> the top level, as it can't know any differently.
>>>
>> That Is how they work.
> 
> Then why isn't that what your traces show?
> 
The traces do show that, they are simply above your degree
of technical competence.

> A why does the comment ask about at the global top, since any one 
> decider doesn't know where it
> 

SO THAT HUMANS CAN SEE THIS AS I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU MANY TIMES
SO THAT HUMANS CAN SEE THIS AS I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU MANY TIMES
SO THAT HUMANS CAN SEE THIS AS I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU MANY TIMES
SO THAT HUMANS CAN SEE THIS AS I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU MANY TIMES

IT IS FREAKING DISABLED AS I HAVE TOLD YOU MANY TIMES
IT IS FREAKING DISABLED AS I HAVE TOLD YOU MANY TIMES
IT IS FREAKING DISABLED AS I HAVE TOLD YOU MANY TIMES
IT IS FREAKING DISABLED AS I HAVE TOLD YOU MANY TIMES

>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It does if it knows that it isn't being simulated, which is knowledge 
>>> that no simulated machine is allowed to have, as that means the 
>>> simulation isn't correct. BY DEFINITION.
>>
>> It only knows this to decide whether to call Allocate
>> or not. It never uses this for anything else.
>>
> 
> Why does that make a difference? Each level needs to allocate the buffer 
> in its own memory space for it to use.
> 
> If they share a buffer, that is improper state sharing.

That is the way that ALL UTMs work knucklehead.
UTMs cannot possibly operate in any other way.

Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
 >
 > Obviously a simulator has access to the
 > internal state (tape contents etc.) of the
 > simulated machine. No problem there.
 >


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