Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:53:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <v5mtba$3elj0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v58m12$8mmo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v59797$brmn$1@dont-email.me> <v5b7nv$qvrb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5btf3$v0vb$4@dont-email.me> <v5chru$10816$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5cn01$149dc$1@dont-email.me> <v5ebvr$1hs89$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5efod$1ikpr$1@dont-email.me> <v5ejau$1iq57$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5eup8$1lar1$2@dont-email.me> <v5f1nm$1lp16$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5f246$1m2fl$1@dont-email.me> <v5f3fg$1lp16$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5f3j8$1m2fl$2@dont-email.me> <v5f54f$1lp16$3@dont-email.me>
 <v5f5sd$1mcif$1@dont-email.me> <v5ght9$21jrt$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5h558$24jbd$7@dont-email.me> <v5jcas$2m18t$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5k7ju$2qsdr$5@dont-email.me> <v5mcvo$1cgj0$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5mklg$3cibm$7@dont-email.me> <v5mo8a$1d3t3$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5mqge$3e4fd$2@dont-email.me> <v5msjt$1d3t3$9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:53:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8e198617313100a552662932ac49ce17";
	logging-data="3626592"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FpouKLs3nWYvwlyNJyr9i"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SnncZpZM4OdbCI9vHQ4i3FQirJc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5msjt$1d3t3$9@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3808

On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote:
> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d rather
> have you answer them.
> 
> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 
>>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which
>>>>> returns „halting” to main… hold on.
>>> Where do you disagree?
> 
>>>>> H0 must not report on itself, only on DDD. Which you’ve proven halts.
>>>>> We don’t care how H0 deviates (i.e. is incorrect) in its simulation.
>>>>> That would be main {H0(H0(DDD))}.
> Do you see what I mean?
> 
>>>> The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant because that
>>>> is not the behavior of the input.
>>> What is the difference here?
> Isn’t the input DDD?
> 
>>>> In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution trace of the
>>>> behavior of DDD correctly emulated by HHH.
>>> No, the sequence is the behaviour of DDD, period.
> The input is not HHH(DDD). See above.
> 
>>>> The behavior of this input must include and cannot ignore the
>>>> recursive emulation specified by the fact that DDD is calling its own
>>>> emulator.
>>> Yes, and the behaviour of H0 is that it produces the exact same
>>> behaviour as DDD.
> Because it is a simulator.
> 
>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly emulated
>> by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly return.
>> That you assume that it does against the facts is ridiculous.
> I don’t. A simulator doesn’t even need to return. That’s not in question.
> A decider however must.

That you keep trying to ignore the fact that DDD calls HHH(DDD)
in recursive simulation is your huge mistake.

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