Re: Hypothetical possibilities -- I reread this again more carefully

On 7/21/2024 4:05 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 22:31:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/20/2024 10:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/20/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/20/24 9:23 PM, olcott wrote:

When an actual x86 emulator stops emulating its input this emulated
input immediately stops running.

The input doesn't even run. The simulator is the only thing in execution.

Yes.

The SIMULATION is an observation of the program, that if it stops
doesn't affect the actual behavior of the program in question.

*If the simulator stops simulating then the simulated stops running*

The simulated program would still be non-halting.

Yes.

 

DDD *correctly simulated* by pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
its own return instruction.

Only DDD correctly emulated by HHH maps the finite string of the x86
machine code of DDD to the behavior that it actually specifies.

Almost correct. Other simulators may map it too, to the behaviour
of the direct execution. HHH doesn't.
 

No decider is ever allowed to report on the behavior of the
actual computation that itself is contained within because
all deciders only take finite string inputs and thus never
take a directly executing process as an input.
HHH is not allowed to report on the directly executed
HHH(DDD) that int main() { DDD(); } calls or the directly
executed DDD() that calls it.
A Turing machine can report on the behavior that a finite
string specifies. It cannot report on the behavior of any
executing Turing machine including its own executing Turing
machine.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer