Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.com (joes)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 10. Jun 2024, 16:25:19
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v475sv$3ipmi$2@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:36:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/10/2024 3:35 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sun, 09 Jun 2024 22:54:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:

THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same behavior
as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions of D to be
incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below).
The only correct simulation must simulate incorrectly? Wat.

In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the
directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine
address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D*
I don't understand. Does D(D) ignore the call to H(D,D)?
H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.
 
The directly executed D(D) reaps the benefit of D simulated by
H proving that *its input never halts*
 
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:cfc
..[00000cfc][00211839][0021183d](01)  55          push ebp
..[00000cfd][00211839][0021183d](02)  8bec        mov ebp,esp
..[00000cff][00211839][0021183d](03)  8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
..[00000d02][00211835][00000cfc](01)  50          push eax      ; push D
..[00000d03][00211835][00000cfc](03)  8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
..[00000d06][00211831][00000cfc](01)  51          push ecx      ; push D
..[00000d07][0021182d][00000d0c](05)  e800feffff  call 00000b0c ; call H
This call to H is simulated H.
We can tell that it is the simulated H is providing this trace because
it has a different virtual machine stack.
*The simulated H derives this execution trace of D*
     machine   stack     stack     machine          assembly address 
     address   data      code             language ========  ========
     ========  ===============  =============
..[00000cfc][0025c261][0025c265](01)  55          push ebp
..[00000cfd][0025c261][0025c265](02)  8bec        mov ebp,esp
..[00000cff][0025c261][0025c265](03)  8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
..[00000d02][0025c25d][00000cfc](01)  50          push eax      ; push D
..[00000d03][0025c25d][00000cfc](03)  8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
..[00000d06][0025c259][00000cfc](01)  51          push ecx      ; push D
..[00000d07][0025c255][00000d0c](05)  e800feffff  call 00000b0c ; call H
Infinitely Nested Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
 
Because the H(D,D) that D(D) calls recognizes the its input
DOES NOT HALT, it aborts the simulation of this input causing
the directly executed D(D) to halt.
How can H report "non-halting" when D(D) halts?

I proved that D simulated by H can only have the same behavior as the
directly executed D(D) when D is simulated by H incorrectly.
You've got it the wrong way around. A simulation must have the same
behaviour.

--
joes

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Jun 24 * Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---373olcott
10 Jun 24 +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---10joes
10 Jun 24 i+* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---4Mikko
10 Jun 24 ii`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---3olcott
11 Jun 24 ii `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---2Mikko
11 Jun 24 ii  `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1olcott
10 Jun 24 i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---5olcott
10 Jun 24 i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---4joes
10 Jun 24 i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---3olcott
10 Jun 24 i   `* Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS ---2joes
10 Jun 24 i    `- Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS ---1olcott
10 Jun 24 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS ---362Richard Damon
11 Jun 24  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error361olcott
11 Jun 24   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error360Richard Damon
11 Jun 24    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error359olcott
11 Jun 24     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error358Richard Damon
11 Jun 24      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten357olcott
12 Jun 24       +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten355Richard Damon
12 Jun 24       i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten354olcott
12 Jun 24       i +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten302Python
12 Jun 24       i i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten301olcott
12 Jun 24       i i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten300Richard Damon
12 Jun 24       i i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten299olcott
12 Jun 24       i i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten298Richard Damon
12 Jun 24       i i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules297olcott
13 Jun 24       i i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules296Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules295olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules288Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules287olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules285Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules284olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules283Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules282olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules281Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules280olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules274Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules273olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules272Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules271olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules270Richard Damon
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules269olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     i     +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules1joes
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules267Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      +* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules236olcott
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i`* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules235Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i `* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)234olcott
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)231Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)230olcott
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)229Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)228olcott
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)169joes
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)168olcott
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i +- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)166joes
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i  +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)2olcott
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i  i`- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)163Mikko
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)162olcott
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i    +- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
16 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)160Mikko
16 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)159olcott
17 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)158Mikko
17 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i       `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)157olcott
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i        `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)156Mikko
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i         `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)155olcott
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i          `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)154Mikko
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i           `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)153olcott
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i            `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)152Mikko
18 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i             `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)151olcott
19 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i              `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)150Mikko
19 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i               `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)149olcott
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)148Mikko
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                 `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)147olcott
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)146Mikko
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)145olcott
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)5joes
20 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)4olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)3Fred. Zwarts
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)2olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i   `- Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)1Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)56Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)55olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)54Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply53olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply52Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply51olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply50Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      +* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply47olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i`* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply46Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply45olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply44Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply43olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply42Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i     `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply41olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply40Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i       `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply39olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i        `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply38Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i         `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply37olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i          `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply36Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i           `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply35olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      i            `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply34Richard Damon
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    i      `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply2olcott
21 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   i                    `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)83Mikko
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  i   `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)58Richard Damon
14 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      i  `* Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D)2joes
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      +* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies12olcott
15 Jun 24       i i       i i     i      `* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES18olcott
13 Jun 24       i i       i i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules5joes
13 Jun 24       i i       i `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules1joes
13 Jun 24       i i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules6joes
12 Jun 24       i `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten51Richard Damon
12 Jun 24       `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Fred. Zwarts

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal