Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 22:35:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <df91986b949e719b9a0fd2aa578849ce1238eeae@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb6o5t$3a95s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb71a3$3b4ub$4@dont-email.me> <vbbmuc$8nbb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbcbe4$bdtb$3@dont-email.me>
 <cb6a625f1737dafed130e2bdad14395d95566ba1@i2pn2.org>
 <vbcl61$d8p0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 02:35:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="993900"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vbcl61$d8p0$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4124
Lines: 79

On 9/5/24 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes the mapping from
>>>>>>> its finite string input to the behavior that this finite string
>>>>>>> specifies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, only whether that
>>>>>> behaviour is finite or infinite.
>>>>>
>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said. Unvortunately I
>>>> can't agree with what you say.
>>>> HHH terminates, so DDD obviously terminates, too. No valid
>>>> C interpretaion of allows DDD to continue forever after HHH jas
>>>> terminated.
>>> DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state. It looks like I
>>> have to repeat this 10,000 times before anyone ever notices that I said
>>> it at least once.
>> We have noticed.
>>
>>> Show the details of how DDD emulated by HHH reaches its own machine
>>> address 0000217f.
> 
> 
>> By HHH returning, which we are guaranteed from its definition as a
>> decider.
>>
> 
> Are you trying to get away with a lie by erasing the context?
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002183] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
> 
> Show the details of how DDD emulated by HHH
> reaches its own machine address 0000217f.
> 
> 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)
> then
> 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)...
> 
> How the F--- Does the emulated HHH return?
> Show the exact freaking steps of how the emulated HHH returns !!!
> 
> 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)
> then what comes next???
> 

000015d2, which is part of the program DDD, as that includes all the 
code used by DDD.

What, are you still that stupid to not be able to learn the definitions?

Look at your 200 page trace.

Replace the 4 lines at the begining with the addresses of DDD insteand 
of the addresss of main, and similarly the end, and you get the exact 
emulation that a correctly emulating HHH would do of THIS DDD (that 
calls the HHH that it does).

VOLA, your trace of DDD correctly emulated reaching the final state.

The fact that the HHH that it calls doesn't do it just proves that your 
HHH fails to meet its requirement.

Remember, the correct emulation of the DDD emulated by HHH is NOT the 
same thing as the emulation of DDD done by this HHH.

You are just proving your ignorance by repeating that error.