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: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 19:45:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <04873adef20ff2198360813a66325ca855af089f@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb5gmf$318v8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 23:45:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="602295"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vb5gmf$318v8$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3180
Lines: 53

On 9/2/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/2/2024 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> ** According to the semantics of the x86 language.
> 
> This prevents the correctly emulated** DDD from ever
> reaching its final halt state no matter what HHH does.
> 
> 

Of course  not, since you have defined that your HHH actually DOES abort 
to return an answer, the CORRECT x86 emulation of the input DDD (which 
isn't what HHH does) steps through the instructions of HHH until it 
reaches the point where it aborts its emulation and return to DDD that 
returns.

WHat doesn't get there is the PARTIAL (and thus not correct) emulation 
done by your HHH.

You can only make your statement work if you stipulate that the HHH you 
have shown isn't the HHH that we have, but we have instead the HHH that 
never aborts, but then that HHH just fails to be a decider so is wrong also,

You don't get to have two different HHHs in the problem. That is just 
your LIE.

Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupidity and ignorance about 
what you are talking, and showing how you are just a pathological liar.