Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:17:12 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 75 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:17:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6820c6f88a6ab7f47362bcc86c8cb3a"; logging-data="211832"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uWu+Xn+93Eeu6pZNf72UG" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:hKXluLkoUfwO4tJOWvwq4NFOWms= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4501 On 6/9/2024 1:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 08.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott: >> Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed >> DD(DD) we must first see that the Sipser approved criteria >> have been met: >> >> >> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >> stop running unless aborted then >> >> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> >> >> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H >>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. >> >> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever >> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH. > > Stopping at your first error. So, we can focus on it. Your are asking a > question that contradicts itself. > A correct simulation of HH that aborts itself, should simulate up to the > point where the simulated HH aborts. That is logically impossible. So, > either it is a correct simulation and then we see that the simulated HH > aborts and returns, or the simulation is incorrect, because it assumes > incorrectly that things that happen (abort) do not happen. > A premature conclusion. > > *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below). _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D* H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D. The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer