Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 14:34:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c6cee00c2708b98ec28f11c78d14e3c4575d6f3c@i2pn2.org>
References: <yU0_P.1529838$4AM6.776697@fx17.ams4>
 <101a7uv$3vfam$5@dont-email.me> <101br7m$db03$1@dont-email.me>
 <101cjk7$hfof$7@dont-email.me>
 <d8d7c46fe2728e5481a504e6edacc8fd0fea5285@i2pn2.org>
 <101e8ak$vhu7$1@dont-email.me> <101etan$14dr4$2@dont-email.me>
 <101fbth$173bb$13@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 18:48:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2723957"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <101fbth$173bb$13@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/31/25 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.
> 
> 

So, where did the differ?

The both were simulating exactly the same code, and seeing exactly the 
same results.

Of course, we can only be talking about this after fixing up the input 
to include the code of HHH so it can be emualated as the input.

Since you have never been able to point at the first instruction where 
the two emulation differ, it needs to be taken as a fact that you KNOW 
you are wrong, but just continue to lie about it as you don't beleive 
the actual facts matter, just your invalid rhetoric,