Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: III correctly emulated by EEE ---
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 11:03:42 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <vroipe$21e58$1@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$1@dont-email.me> <d8ee6d675850304b99af1b587437ba0ac64dbb85@i2pn2.org> <vrms64$cvat$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 10:03:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="37866a6b33007acdf0a2a280f5c416ae";
	logging-data="2144424"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+tJBS0cQ4zgGjd1wGyit2E"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qDcYbLiRe+LAVLtr78IEh7OxKrs=
Bytes: 3454

On 2025-03-22 17:31:48 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.

I would implement EEE so that it skips some (hopefully unimportant) details
of the behaviour of III (or whatever input is given) and emulates the rest
of the behaviour.

-- 
Mikko