Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 22:35:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <96a25bcc03dd5ea9c1ebac3a78e2d573441fa719@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb4u1g$2u7sn$4@dont-email.me>
 <vb59cg$3057o$1@dont-email.me>
 <f0ff8a5345087a3b89853b26af12e38d433afc7b@i2pn2.org>
 <vb7l68$3efl8$1@dont-email.me>
 <e31c9b03d979de12131d3043f3f09dcd94273e7e@i2pn2.org>
 <vb7rbl$3fd42$1@dont-email.me> <vb99qf$3plip$3@dont-email.me>
 <vb9m01$3rh1t$2@dont-email.me> <vbc0sg$9vqh$2@dont-email.me>
 <vbce2a$c3a0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 02:35:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="993900"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vbce2a$c3a0$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4220
Lines: 71

On 9/5/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/5/2024 5:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 04.sep.2024 om 15:06 schreef olcott:
>>> On 9/4/2024 4:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 03.sep.2024 om 22:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 9/3/2024 2:01 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Tue, 03 Sep 2024 13:40:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 9:42 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 02 Sep 2024 16:06:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2024 12:52 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 02.sep.2024 om 18:38 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> Which DDD does not.
>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its final halt state no 
>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>> what HHH does.
>>>>>> But DDD halts, so it „specifies halting behaviour”.
>>>>>> HHH can’t simulate itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH does simulate itself simulating DDD
>>>>> why do you insist on lying about this?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>> HHH *tries* to simulate itself, but it fails to reach the end of its 
>>>> simulation of the halting program.
>>>
>>> The source code proves otherwise that you are not bright
>>> enough to understand this code is no rebuttal at all.
>>>
>> Olcott's only rebuttal is a ad hominem attacks.
>> No evidence for another incorrect claim.
>> Even olcott agreed that HHH cannot reach the end of DDD and now he 
>> contradicts himself.
> 
> 
> 
> DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state.
> It looks like I have to repeat this 10,000 times before
> anyone ever notices that I said it at least once.
> 
> _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)...
> 

Nope goes to 000015d2, and the through the rest of HHH, and when that 
aborts its simulation it will return to 0000217f.

Of course, HHH aborts its emulation before it gets there, and thus can't 
actually correctly emulate the input, but the correct emulation does 
halt if HHH is a decider.