Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure

On 6/24/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/24/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/24/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/24/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/24/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote:

>
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*
*We can get to that as soon as you reverse your lie*

>
You still haven't shown where I lied, on where you don't like what I say.
>

>
You said that D correctly simulated by H must
have the behavior of the directly executed D(D).

>
Right, the steps that H sees are IDENTIAL to the steps of the directly executed D(D) until H stops its simulation,
>
NOT ONE DIFFERENCE.
>

>
Honest mistake or liar?
>
The directly executed D(D) has identical behavior to
D correctly simulated by H1
*the call from D to H(D,D) returns*
>
This is not the same behavior as
D correctly simulated by H
*the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return*
>

>
And what instruction did H's simulation differ from the direct executions trace?
>

 D correctly simulated by H
*the call from D to H(D,D) DOES NOT return*

Which isn't "Behavior of the input"
The "not happening" of something that could have happened except that the processing was stoped is NOT behavior.

 D correctly simulated by H1 --- Identical to D(D)
*the call from D to H(D,D) returns*
 

Right, and it contains ALL of the behavior of the correct simulation of D by H, plus more.
H doesn't see DIFFERENT behavior, just LESS, and that differnce isn't due to the input, but due to H.