Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met

On 6/26/24 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/26/2024 9:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 27/06/2024 02:52, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/26/24 9:30 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 27/06/2024 02:15, Mike Terry wrote:

On 27/06/2024 01:42, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/26/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/26/2024 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/26/24 7:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/26/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/26/24 9:42 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/26/2024 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/25/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:

>
That is not the way that it actually works.
That the the way that lies are defined.

>
Source for you claim?
>
Where is you finite set of steps from the truthmakers of the system to that claim?
>

>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.

>
Sure it can. I have shown an H0 that does so.
>

>
I already told you that example does not count.
>
I can't keep repeating those details or others
that so far have no idea what an x86 emulator is
will be baffled beyond all hope of comprehension.
>

>
WHy not?
>

>
We have already been over that you know that you cheated.
>

>
Nope, since you didn't put in the rule, and if you had it would have shown that you lied, as if H0 is a pure function then the call to H0 emulated by H0 needs to have the same behaivor as the direct call to H0 by main.

>
Incidentally, the nonconformance you're referring to is shown explicitly in the "195 page trace" that PO linked to.  [I.e. the simulated H does not correctly track the code path of the outer H.]

>
I suppose I should have made clear, that's not simply due to the simulated H being aborted.  There is an instruction in H: [actually, in Init_Halts_HH()]
>
[000012e4] 753b jnz 00001321
>
and in outer H control proceeds to 000012e6  [i.e. branch not taken],
whilein simulated H control proceeds to 00001321  [i.e. branch taken]
>
>
Mike.
>

>
Would need to look closer at the code, but I bet that the simulated machine is looking into the trace buffer to see if it is simulated or not.

>
Has PO published the C code for the trace?  Anyhow, given that its in Init_Halts_HH(), I expect its a global area being initialised - probably the global trace table.
>

>
In effect, it is misusing static memory just like he says isn't allowed.

>
Right.
>
>
Mike.
>

 Try and tell me how UTMs work such that their slave does not
use a portion of the UTM's tape. You know this is impossible,
thus the global trace table is not incorrect it is mandatory.
 Typically the global trace table is mixed together with
everything else of the slave's internal state. That would
be ridiculously terrible software engineering.
 

The UTM stores the data ENCODED on its tape so that it can give back that data as requrested.
The simulated machine CAN NOT tell that it is being simulated, and thus all it can ever see on the tape is the initial contents, with the changes IT has made.