Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- trace of HHH on DDD input
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 14:27:09 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <57c86522e95be7746b2d2864b20d6cd129552990@i2pn2.org>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <va38qh$3ia79$1@dont-email.me>
	<7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
	<va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
	<729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
	<va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
	<148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
	<va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me>
	<va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
	<5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
	<va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
	<b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
	<va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
	<26fadbf7b8cb5f93dbe18bffeff6e959251f9892@i2pn2.org>
	<va6b4n$7boc$1@dont-email.me>
	<b19eb2a29dacfa67f2f9ced0d03234e980f4c985@i2pn2.org>
	<va6edj$8f0p$1@dont-email.me>
	<e20689d26c224e4923146d425843348539ce6065@i2pn2.org>
	<va7tb3$h3la$1@dont-email.me>
	<2c6dfb2e8cdafc17fd833599dfba3843f56a281a@i2pn2.org>
	<vaavkc$128hl$1@dont-email.me> <vac6ns$1atfd$1@dont-email.me>
	<vacmpa$1d5dd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 14:27:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3727730"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4133
Lines: 48

Am Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:21:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 8/24/2024 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 23.aug.2024 om 23:40 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/23/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:42:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> Only IF it will in fact keep repeating, which is not the case.
>>> Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
>> It is the case only if you still cheat with the Root variable, which
>> makes that HHH processes a non-input, when it is requested to predict
>> the behaviour of the input.
> The fact is that it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating,
> thus *IT DOES* get the correct answer.
The simulated, aborting HHH would… abort.

>> The input given to HHH in fact halts, as is seen in the direct
>> execution and in the correct simulation by HHH1.
> The fact is that all deciders only report on the behavior specified by
> their inputs and non-inputs are non-of-their-damn business.
Non-inputs such as a pure simulator that does not abort.

> When HHH computes the mapping from its finite string input of the x86
> machine code of DDD to the the behavior that DDD specifies HHH correctly
> predicts that DDD cannot possibly stop running unless aborted.
> 
> The reason that this seem so strange is not that I am incorrect.
Yes it is.
> The reason is that everyone rejected simulation as a basis for a halt
> decider out-of-hand without review.
Absolutely not. What do you think we are doing here?
> Because of this they never saw the
> details of this behavior when a termination analyzer correctly emulates
> an input that calls itself.
The details have been sufficiently dissected.

> They never notices that there could possibly be a case where the
> behavior of the emulation of the machine specified by its own Machine
> description (x86 language) could differ from the direct execution of
> this same machine.
Which means the simulator is wrong.

>> But HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
> The ONLY measure of simulated correctly is that each x86 instruction of
> N instructions of DDD is emulated correctly and in the correct order.
ALL instructions.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.