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: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 19:09:55 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0187b0eef896c8d9c129b68ee86416fdf269989a@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$3@dont-email.me> <vbeoge$q2ph$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbeprp$punj$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 23:09:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1049103"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vbeprp$punj$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4467
Lines: 90

On 9/6/24 7:42 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038c4
>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
>>>>> [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call 
>>>>> HHH(DDD)
>>>>> New slave_stack at:14e2ec
>>>>> [00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call 
>>>>> HHH(DDD)
>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>
>>>>> Hence  HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
>>>>
>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said.
>>>> Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say.
>>>> HHH terminates,
>>>
>>>> os DDD obviously terminates, too. No valid
>>>
>>> DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state.
>>
>> If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does not return
>> and therefore is not a ceicder.
>>
> 
> The directly executed HHH is a decider.
> 
> _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)...
> 
> WHAT SHOULD THE NEXT STEPS BE?
> 

After the FIRST call to HHH it should have gone to the address 000015d2 
and then emulated the code of HHH which is part of the program DDD.


Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a cowardly pathetic 
ignorant pathological lying idiot that doesn't understand the meaning of 
the words and is so mentally disable that he can not learn those meanings.

YOu just demonstratte that you are ACCEPTING that you are unable to 
refute my comments by just ignoring them, because you know that you 
can't actualy refute them as they are true.

Sorry, those are just the simple and obvious verified facts.