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
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 22:03:51 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5vn67$1oana$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v5mtba$3elj0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5n2ah$1d3t3$10@i2pn2.org> <v5n2sk$3fm1k$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5po6i$1h5u1$1@i2pn2.org> <v5pp9m$2jk8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5r5p4$1irrf$1@i2pn2.org> <v5s4f4$jvgt$3@dont-email.me>
 <v5tp92$vsqr$2@dont-email.me> <v5u94l$12udb$5@dont-email.me>
 <v5vi68$1oanb$4@i2pn2.org> <v5vlok$1b0k9$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 02:03:51 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1845994"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v5vlok$1b0k9$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3920
Lines: 50

On 7/1/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/1/24 8:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2024 3:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of aborting,
>>>>>> the same as the outer one does?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Technically it is called detecting a repeating state.
>>>>>> Yeah, I know. My point is: all recursive calls both enter and detect
>>>>>> a repeating state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The inner ones always see one less execution trace
>>>>> than the next outer one, thus could only meet their
>>>>> abort criteria after they have already been aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which indicates that they were aborted too soon, showing that the 
>>>> emulation was incorrect.
>>>
>>> Unless the outer HHH aborts its simulation after some
>>> fixed number of correct emulations or none of the HHH
>>> ever aborts and HHH never stops running.
>>
>> But the outer HHH DOES abort its simulation, since you have said it 
>> did (and it either does or it doesn't).
>>
>> That means that the simulation of DDD stops, but not the behavior of 
>> the machine that it is simulating.
>>
> 
> x86 code remains a static string and thus not a dynamic process
> when it is no longer simulated. If you never heard of those two
> terms before then you do not have the equivalent of a BSCS.
> 

Nope. Not when you define that it is by the semantics of the x86 
instruction set. At that point, its behavior becomes FULLY DEFINED even 
if never run or simulated.

YOU don't seem to understand the basics of programming.

You can show behavior of a program without ever actually simulating it.

In fact, "Termination Anaylsys" is based on that, as without having an 
actual input (since it asks about for ALL inputs) there isn't an ability 
to actually run or simulate the code, just analyize it for executional 
invariants and cases to see what it might be able to do.