Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<57c86522e95be7746b2d2864b20d6cd129552990@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: joes <noreply@example.org> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- trace of HHH on DDD input Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 14:27:09 -0000 (UTC) Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <57c86522e95be7746b2d2864b20d6cd129552990@i2pn2.org> References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <va38qh$3ia79$1@dont-email.me> <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org> <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me> <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org> <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me> <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org> <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me> <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me> <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org> <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me> <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org> <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me> <26fadbf7b8cb5f93dbe18bffeff6e959251f9892@i2pn2.org> <va6b4n$7boc$1@dont-email.me> <b19eb2a29dacfa67f2f9ced0d03234e980f4c985@i2pn2.org> <va6edj$8f0p$1@dont-email.me> <e20689d26c224e4923146d425843348539ce6065@i2pn2.org> <va7tb3$h3la$1@dont-email.me> <2c6dfb2e8cdafc17fd833599dfba3843f56a281a@i2pn2.org> <vaavkc$128hl$1@dont-email.me> <vac6ns$1atfd$1@dont-email.me> <vacmpa$1d5dd$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 14:27:09 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3727730"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM"; User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4133 Lines: 48 Am Sat, 24 Aug 2024 08:21:45 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 8/24/2024 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 23.aug.2024 om 23:40 schreef olcott: >>> On 8/23/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:42:59 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> >>>> Only IF it will in fact keep repeating, which is not the case. >>> Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case* >> It is the case only if you still cheat with the Root variable, which >> makes that HHH processes a non-input, when it is requested to predict >> the behaviour of the input. > The fact is that it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, > thus *IT DOES* get the correct answer. The simulated, aborting HHH would… abort. >> The input given to HHH in fact halts, as is seen in the direct >> execution and in the correct simulation by HHH1. > The fact is that all deciders only report on the behavior specified by > their inputs and non-inputs are non-of-their-damn business. Non-inputs such as a pure simulator that does not abort. > When HHH computes the mapping from its finite string input of the x86 > machine code of DDD to the the behavior that DDD specifies HHH correctly > predicts that DDD cannot possibly stop running unless aborted. > > The reason that this seem so strange is not that I am incorrect. Yes it is. > The reason is that everyone rejected simulation as a basis for a halt > decider out-of-hand without review. Absolutely not. What do you think we are doing here? > Because of this they never saw the > details of this behavior when a termination analyzer correctly emulates > an input that calls itself. The details have been sufficiently dissected. > They never notices that there could possibly be a case where the > behavior of the emulation of the machine specified by its own Machine > description (x86 language) could differ from the direct execution of > this same machine. Which means the simulator is wrong. >> But HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly. > The ONLY measure of simulated correctly is that each x86 instruction of > N instructions of DDD is emulated correctly and in the correct order. ALL instructions. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.