Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided

On 5/20/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/20/2024 3:37 AM, immibis wrote:

On 20/05/24 07:17, olcott wrote:

On 5/19/2024 11:37 PM, immibis wrote:

On 19/05/24 15:06, olcott wrote:

Show H simulating P and H simulating itself simulating P.
>
The 395 pages of the execution trace of the simulated H are
screened out. No one here could ever understand the half page
trace so embedding that in 395 more pages would not help.

>
The fact that you took 395 pages to get to "if(flag) return 0;" does not mean that you didn't use "if(flag) return 0;"
>

 The fact that every instruction of D is correctly emulated in the
order of the the assembly language that D specifies both before D
calls H(D,D) and then after H(D,D) correctly simulates D(D) all
over again conclusively proves recursive simulation without the
need for the additional 395 pages mixed in.
 

Which means that H did NOT correctly simulate EVERY imstruction in D, as it did not correctly simulate the "Call H" instruction.

The tricky part of this was giving each simulated D its own
separate process with its own memory registers and stack.

Nope. because we are only interested in the behavior of the outer D, and what that H does processing its input. That is DIFFERENT then what that simulation that is being simulated does.
Since the simulated H that the top level simulation of D calls will, if allowed to run, abort its simulation and return to that D, saying that *D* has cause an infinte recursion is just incorrect logic. D doesn't do that as the H that it calls, and thus is part of that D, breaks the loop.
H just can't see that as it aborts its simulation too soon, and your logic looks at the WRONG simulations to evaluate what THIS input does.

 

>
That P is simulated correctly is proven by the fact that the
x86 assembly language instructions of P are correctly simulated
and they are simulated in the order that the assembly language
of P specifies.

>
This is a lie -> If every assembly instruction that was simulated is simulated correctly, the program was simulated correctly. <- This is a lie.
>

>
*Quoted from page 4 of the paper linked below*

>
Notice that none of what you wrote had any relationship to anything that I wrote.
>

 I am using categorically exhaustive reasoning that can work
through every possibility that can possibly exist in a feasible
amount of time as long as the category is very very narrow.

But don't define the precise category, or the precise thing you are trying to measure, so you aren't actually defining what you are doing so you can't really limit it.

 Enlarge the category a tiny little bit and then the time
becomes infeasible.
 The tiniest little divergence from the title of this
thread and I totally ignore and erase everything else
that you say.