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: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 07:57:09 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bb370c4fa72be866fc8764a2d9574b6ac1a499cb@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>
 <vbrh87$3fttk$1@dont-email.me> <vbrvln$3im2p$2@dont-email.me>
 <vbu6oa$59vd$1@dont-email.me> <vbuhsp$7g4h$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 11:57:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1776465"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vbuhsp$7g4h$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6346
Lines: 121

On 9/12/24 7:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/12/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-11 11:41:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/11/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-11 00:21:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> 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*
>>>>
>>>> A halt decider is required to predict about the actual execution,
>>>> not a couterfactual assumption.
>>>
>>> False assumption.
>>
>> It is not an assumption.
>>
>> "In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
>> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
>> and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue
>> to run forever." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>
>> That definition obviously contains what I said above.
>>
> 
> It is ridiculously stupid to simply ignore the verified
> fact that DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation and
> DDD DOES NOT call HHH1(DDD) in recursive emulation.
> 

But that doesn't actually affect anything.

Since the correct emulation of an input is BY DEFINITION independent of 
who does it, as it exactly reproduces each step of the program, which is 
determined and fixed.

All that recursion does is make it IMPOSSIBLE for HHH to do the task and 
return.

Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupidity.

You just don't seem to understand how TRUTH actually works, it is 
something fixed, and doesn't wiggle around as you play with it.