Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 15:26:36 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 69 Message-ID: <101fl5a$1dfmq$1@dont-email.me> References: <101a7uv$3vfam$5@dont-email.me> <101br7m$db03$1@dont-email.me> <101cjk7$hfof$7@dont-email.me> <101e8ak$vhu7$1@dont-email.me> <101etan$14dr4$2@dont-email.me> <101fbth$173bb$13@dont-email.me> <101fcgj$19e5f$2@dont-email.me> <101fia9$1cj4h$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 21:26:35 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d1adda083d038348e190ff3433969ba4"; logging-data="1490650"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZmmO55qqwEb8mHj5smvno" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:gRfFWd2jiOy8KtM/UNDKtZQKGH8= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <101fia9$1cj4h$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 3842 On 5/31/2025 2:38 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/31/2025 11:59 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 5/31/2025 12:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/31/2025 7:39 AM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 5/31/2025 2:41 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/30/2025 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/30/25 11:41 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/30/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-05-29 18:10:39 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2025 12:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 🧠 Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In the classical framework of computation theory (Turing >>>>>>>>>> machines), >>>>>>>>>> simulation is not equivalent to execution, though they can >>>>>>>>>> approximate one >>>>>>>>>> another. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge a simulated input >>>>>>>>> always has the exact same behavior as the directly >>>>>>>>> executed input unless this simulated input calls >>>>>>>>> its own simulator. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The simulation of the behaviour should be equivalent to the real >>>>>>>> behaviour. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is the same as saying a function with infinite >>>>>>> recursion must have the same behavior as a function >>>>>>> without infinite recursion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. Where does it say that? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _DDD() >>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp >>>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp >>>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192 >>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH >>>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04 >>>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp >>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret >>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3] >>>>> >>>>> DDD emulated by HHH must be aborted.   // otherwise infinite recursion >>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1 need not be aborted. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And the simulation performed by each of these is the same up to the >>>> point that HHH aborts, as you have admitted on the record: >>>> >>> >>> No moron they are not. >>> HHH performs one whole recursive emulation of DDD >>> than HHH1 ever does BEFORE HHH EVER ABORTS. >>> >> >> Nope, if that was true you would have previously identified the >> divergence but failed to do so. >> > > The code has proved that it is true for three years. False. That you are unable to see that the side by side code traces are exactly the same up the the point that HHH aborts is not a rebuttal.