Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 08:29:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <vb7309$3b4ub$9@dont-email.me>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb4u1g$2u7sn$4@dont-email.me>
 <vb5drq$30qlu$1@dont-email.me> <vb6d25$38dum$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 15:29:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f5540fbd60b9a9e7d5f7c4b40526c50b";
	logging-data="3511243"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/0FiDd3gqqz2CdG+VakU2U"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aMAsQEK0Vf9cF2PXZfQ/m2U7EHc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vb6d25$38dum$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3633

On 9/3/2024 2:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 03.sep.2024 om 00:22 schreef olcott:
>> On 9/2/2024 12:52 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 02.sep.2024 om 18:38 schreef olcott:
>>>> A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes
>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the
>>>> behavior that this finite string specifies.
>>>>
>>>> If the finite string machine string machine
>>>> description specifies that it cannot possibly
>>>> reach its own final halt state then this machine
>>>> description specifies non-halting behavior.
>>>>
>>>> A halt decider never ever computes the mapping
>>>> for the computation that itself is contained within.
>>>>
>>>> Unless there is a pathological relationship between
>>>> the halt decider H and its input D the direct execution
>>>> of this input D will always have identical behavior to
>>>> D correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H.
>>>>
>>>> *Simulating Termination Analyzer H Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>
>>>> A correct emulation of DDD by HHH only requires that HHH
>>>> emulate the instructions of DDD** including when DDD calls
>>>> HHH in recursive emulation such that HHH emulates itself
>>>> emulating DDD.
>>>
>>> Indeed, it should simulate *itself* and not a hypothetical other HHH 
>>> with different behaviour.
>>> If HHH includes code to see a 'special condition' and aborts and 
>>> halts, then it should also simulate the HHH that includes this same 
>>> code and 
>>
>>
>> DDD has itself and the emulated HHH stuck in recursive emulation.
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
> 
> It is not DDD. It is HHH that has the problem when trying to simulate 
> itself.

It does this correctly yet beyond your intellectual capacity.

_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]

Instructions from machine address 00002172 through
machine address 0000217a are emulated.

What instruction of DDD do you believe comes next?

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer