Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!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: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:07:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <26163d36b7d1364679dc27347f0daf964d38bc62@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>
 <c600a691fab10473128eed2a1fad2a429ad4733f@i2pn2.org>
 <vbh2sp$19ov0$1@dont-email.me> <vbhm3c$1c7u5$12@dont-email.me>
 <vbkdph$1v80k$1@dont-email.me> <vbne7e$2g6vo$6@dont-email.me>
 <vbp1d7$2sg7q$1@dont-email.me> <vbqnqi$381t6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 02:07:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1605590"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vbqnqi$381t6$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5655
Lines: 108

On 9/10/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/10/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-09 18:19:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/8/2024 9:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-07 13:57:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/7/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-07 05:12:19 +0000, joes said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:42:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038c4 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> What does simulating it change about that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the simulation is incorrect it may change anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>>>>
>>>> However, a correct simultation faithfully imitates the original
>>>> behaviour.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>> A correct emulation obeys the x86 machine code even
>>> if this machine code catches the machine on fire.
>>>
>>> It is impossible for an emulation of DDD by HHH to
>>> reach machine address 00002183 AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
>>
>> A correct emulation of DDD does reach the machine address 0000217f and
>> a little later 00002183. 
> 
> *That is counter-factual and you cannot possibly show otherwise*
> *Here are the verified facts*
> *any attempt to show otherwise cannot possibly succeed*

No, YOUR CLAIM is counter factual , because you HHH doesn't actualy DO a 
correct emualtion, as it has been programmed to abort before it gets there.

> 
> DDD emulated by the directly executed HHH derived these steps:
> 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a
> 
> thus HHH emulated by the directly executed HHH cannot possibly
> derive and other steps and I have proved that it does not
> derive any other steps by the actual execution trace by a world
> class x86 emulator libx86emu.
> 

But a CORRECT emulation of the input would emulate that HHH(DDD) that 
DDD called and see that it will return to DDD, as it return to all callers.

THe fact that HHH gives up and assumes that a correct emulation doesn't 
return is just an incorrect emulation and unsound logic.

The fact that HHH can't do the emulation isn't significant to the actual 
questionb you are supposed to be answering, just that your strawman 
version is just invalid, and your HHH can't do what you want it to.

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.