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, 9 Sep 2024 22:47:27 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <80e64ccf50e7e3d0c6fbca4a14ec69322e5348ea@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> <vbh2q8$19og2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhm1i$1c7u5$11@dont-email.me>
 <1f7a86cb3710a6e34ece86b41bbee138a8de2ddf@i2pn2.org>
 <vbk7ng$1u1js$3@dont-email.me> <vbmka0$2ce7j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbnbup$2g6vo$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 02:47:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1470041"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vbnbup$2g6vo$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4377
Lines: 68

On 9/9/24 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/9/2024 5:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 08.sep.2024 om 15:10 schreef olcott:
>>> On 9/8/2024 7:46 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:56:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 9/7/2024 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-09-06 11:42:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> Like Sipser said.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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, so DDD obviously terminates, too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the called HHH behaves differently from the direcly executed HHH
>>>>>> then the DDD is not relevant to classic proofs of the 
>>>>>> impossibility of
>>>>>> a halting decider.
>>>>>> If you can't show encoding rules that permit the encoidng of the
>>>>>> behaviour of the directly executed DDD to HHH then HHH is not a 
>>>>>> halting
>>>>>> decider.
>>>>> I SHOW THE ACTUAL EXECUTION TRACE AND EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH IT.
>>>> Your implementation is buggy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> X86utm is based on a world class x86 emulator that
>>> has had decades of development effort. It has been
>>> trivial to verify to the execution traces that it
>>> produces are correct for three years.
>>
>> And the simulation by this unmodified X86utm showed that the DDD based 
>> on the HHH that aborts, halts.
>>
> 
> The freaking question has never been when DDD is aborted does
> it stop running? I told you the question too many times and
> you always dishonestly change it.
> 

No, it has always been, when HHH does what it does (which is abort) does 
the program DDD that calls that HHH reach its final state or not.

It has NEVER been about can HHH emulate its input to a final state, like 
you keep on wanting to talk about, as you dont seem to understand that 
the partial emulation by HHH doesn't actual define the behavior of the 
input, only what HHH knows about the behavior of the input.