Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem

On 5/31/2025 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2025 11:59 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/31/2025 12:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2025 7:39 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/31/2025 2:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/30/2025 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/30/25 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/30/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-29 18:10:39 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/29/2025 12:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

>
🧠 Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
>
In the classical framework of computation theory (Turing machines),
simulation is not equivalent to execution, though they can approximate one
another.

>
To the best of my knowledge a simulated input
always has the exact same behavior as the directly
executed input unless this simulated input calls
its own simulator.

>
The simulation of the behaviour should be equivalent to the real
behaviour.

>
That is the same as saying a function with infinite
recursion must have the same behavior as a function
without infinite recursion.

>
Nope. Where does it say that?
>

>
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>
DDD emulated by HHH must be aborted.   // otherwise infinite recursion
DDD emulated by HHH1 need not be aborted.
>

>
>
And the simulation performed by each of these is the same up to the point that HHH aborts, as you have admitted on the record:
>

>
No moron they are not.
HHH performs one whole recursive emulation of DDD
than HHH1 ever does BEFORE HHH EVER ABORTS.
>

>
Nope, if that was true you would have previously identified the divergence but failed to do so.
>

 The code has proved that it is true for three years.

False.
That you are unable to see that the side by side code traces are exactly the same up the the point that HHH aborts is not a rebuttal.