Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: III correctly emulated by EEE ---
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 12:31:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <vrms64$cvat$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrgme1$2tr56$1@dont-email.me>
 <vri5mn$6nv4$1@dont-email.me>
 <8354fe5751e03a767452a3999818d5c6da714a6b@i2pn2.org>
 <vrigh6$f35v$1@dont-email.me> <vrj6d3$14iuu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrjog0$1ilbe$6@dont-email.me>
 <db8aa67218b2a0990cd1df38aca29dbd3930e145@i2pn2.org>
 <vrkumg$2l2ci$2@dont-email.me>
 <ba957e964c1090cbb801b1688b951ac095281737@i2pn2.org>
 <vrmepa$2r2l$1@dont-email.me>
 <d8ee6d675850304b99af1b587437ba0ac64dbb85@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 18:31:48 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0ec9c516aeb6faf287a21f372f67aa5c";
	logging-data="425309"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1MBU0md49/jWZAhA22p7x"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fGdYeEIXOJqsPL7hGGhtfvO38zk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <d8ee6d675850304b99af1b587437ba0ac64dbb85@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250322-4, 3/22/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 3540

On 3/22/2025 11:37 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:43:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 
>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>> int main()
>> {
>>     HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
>> }
>> There is no program DDD in the above code.
> There is also no Infinite_Recursion.
> 
>> Since no Turing machine M can ever compute the mapping from the behavior
>> of any directly executed TM2 referring to the behavior of the directly
>> executed DDD has always been incorrect. Halt Deciders always report on
>> the behavior that their input finite string specifies.

> Please explain what behaviour the description of a TM "specifies",
> and which TM the input describes.
> 

"Bill sang a song" describes what Bill did.
A tape recording of Bill singing that same
song completely specifies what Bill did.

>> In every case that does not involve pathological self-reference the
>> behavior that the finite string specifies is coincidentally the same
>> behavior as the direct execution of the corresponding machine. The
>> actual measure, however, has always been the behavior that the finite
>> string input specifies.
> ...which is the direct execution. Not much of a coincidence.
> 

_III()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III)
[0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

When-so-ever any correct emulator EEE correctly emulates
a finite number of steps of an input III that calls this
same emulator to emulate itself the behavior of the direct
execution of III will not be the same as the behavior of
the emulated III.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer