| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vso3ej$2v6po$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.tomockey.net!news.samoylyk.net!news.quux.org!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: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 10:58:11 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 129 Message-ID: <vso3ej$2v6po$1@dont-email.me> References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vs78cu$3ms9k$1@dont-email.me> <c2b91231b9052e07b6705250938fb9095e711327@i2pn2.org> <vs7kvf$3eal$2@dont-email.me> <aeb75b411e9f77c974585181c671a47d03b22078@i2pn2.org> <vs7qdm$8dae$2@dont-email.me> <vs7r9b$8ajp$1@dont-email.me> <vs92l3$1fccq$5@dont-email.me> <vs93ae$1k9u2$1@dont-email.me> <vs9g5p$1v2n9$5@dont-email.me> <vs9gcg$20g2j$3@dont-email.me> <vs9h9o$23cav$2@dont-email.me> <vs9hh3$20g2j$6@dont-email.me> <vs9jie$23cav$4@dont-email.me> <vs9kb1$26cg5$2@dont-email.me> <vs9pni$27rl4$9@dont-email.me> <3ade9e84224ba9b99c7363e0e9b69181804b7daa@i2pn2.org> <vsc2fd$1vihj$2@dont-email.me> <e1da7d564873d36f88e119fbbbdafd8c6b0f675e@i2pn2.org> <vsc9o7$2bk3d$2@dont-email.me> <vsdkq5$3rdgv$1@dont-email.me> <vselj9$th5g$1@dont-email.me> <vsg0tj$2e09c$1@dont-email.me> <vsht0a$90ss$4@dont-email.me> <vsiurv$1estf$1@dont-email.me> <vskqim$378kj$7@dont-email.me> <vsla1h$1kf$1@dont-email.me> <vsn00o$1ltd2$4@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2025 09:58:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="92281398402b6c1bb2a3f61b0db94096"; logging-data="3119928"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19OPBJg1C7+IWo7WHF0fOc3" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:WBC9Zwr+R15IlPYgsf79k/Fdv6g= Bytes: 7469 On 2025-04-03 21:53:27 +0000, olcott said: > On 4/3/2025 1:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2025-04-03 02:08:22 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 4/2/2025 4:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2025-04-01 23:31:23 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 4/1/2025 1:25 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-03-31 18:06:35 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/31/2025 3:47 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-03-30 20:32:07 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 1:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/25 2:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 3:12 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:46:26 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 3:14 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can know that when this adapted UTM simulates a finite number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps of its input that this finite number of steps were simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And therefore does not do a correct UTM simulation that matches the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the direct execution as it is incomplete. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is dishonest to expect non-terminating inputs to complete. >>>>>>>>>>>> A complete simulation of a nonterminating input doesn't halt. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) changing the input is not allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input is unchanged. There never was any indication that the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was in any way changed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> False, if the starting function calls UTM and UTM changes, you're >>>>>>>>>>>>>> changing the input. >>>>>>>>>>>>> When UTM1 is a UTM that has been adapted to only simulate a finite >>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps >>>>>>>>>>>> So not an UTM. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and input D calls UTM1 then the behavior of D simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>> by UTM1 never reaches its final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>> When D is simulated by ordinary UTM2 that D does not call Then D reaches >>>>>>>>>>>>> its final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter if it calls it, but if the UTM halts. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I never changed the input. D always calls UTM1. >>>>>>>>>>>>> thus is the same input to UTM1 as it is to UTM2. >>>>>>>>>>>> You changed UTM1, which is part of the input D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> UTM1 simulates D that calls UTM1 >>>>>>>>>>> simulated D NEVER reaches final halt state >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> UTM2 simulates D that calls UTM1 >>>>>>>>>>> simulated D ALWAYS reaches final halt state >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Only because UTM1 isn't actually a UTM, but a LIE since it only does a >>>>>>>>>> partial simulation, not a complete as REQURIED by the definition of a >>>>>>>>>> UTM. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES SPECIFY THAT IT >>>>>>>>> CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL HALT STATE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, it does not. HHH misintepretes, contrary to the semantics of x86, >>>>>>>> the specification to mean that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a truism that a correct x86 emulator >>>>>>> would emulate itself emulating DDD whenever >>>>>>> DDD calls this emulator with itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> Irrelevant. You didn't say anything about a correct emulator or emulation. >>>>> >>>>> Sure all trolls would agree that when-so-ever a statement >>>>> is made many dozens of time this proves that this statement >>>>> was never said. >>>> >>>> Trolls don't care what was said. But I do. My comment was about your words >>>> I quoted. Your response was not about my or your quoted words. Instead you >>>> talked obout something else as trolls typically do. >>> >>> I always reply to the immediate context. >>> What you said was irrelevant was a key essence >>> of my reasoning that proves my point. >>> >>> When someone totally proves their point a Troll >>> that is only interested in naysaying would see >>> that the point is irrefutable so they say some >>> other nonsense such that the point was irrelevant. >> >> As can be seen above, you had said said: >> >>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3 ret >>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES SPECIFY THAT IT >>>>>>>>> CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL HALT STATE. >> >> That, and especially the last pair of lines, is the immediate context >> to my comment: > > THE FACT THAT DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES NOT HALT IS > NOT RELEVANT TO A CORRECT DECISION BY A HALT DECIDER? > HHH does correctly compute the mapping from its input > finite string on this basis: Irrelevant. The relevant context does not mention a correct decision. -- Mikko