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, 2 Sep 2024 17:39:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e10163f95067231584e50c176188310d5205bb0a@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb4u1g$2u7sn$4@dont-email.me>
 <vb59cg$3057o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 21:39:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="602295"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vb59cg$3057o$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3549
Lines: 66

On 9/2/24 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>> A halt decider never ever computes the mapping
>>> for the computation that itself is contained within.
>>>
>>> Unless there is a pathological relationship between
>>> the halt decider H and its input D the direct execution
>>> of this input D will always have identical behavior to
>>> D correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H.
>>>
>>> *Simulating Termination Analyzer H Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>
>>> A correct emulation of DDD by HHH only requires that HHH
>>> emulate the instructions of DDD** including when DDD calls
>>> HHH in recursive emulation such that HHH emulates itself
>>> emulating DDD.
>>
>> Indeed, it should simulate *itself* and not a hypothetical other HHH 
>> with different behaviour.
> 
> It is emulating the exact same freaking machine code
> that the x86utm operating system is emulating.
> 

And either IGNORES it or LIES, as it uses the "rule" of No condition 
instruction in the emulation of DDD, when there ARE conditional 
instructions in the code of the PROGRAM DDD, namely those of the 
function HHH that it calls.


>> If HHH includes code to see a 'special condition' and aborts and 
>> halts, then it should also simulate the HHH that includes this same 
>> code and 
> 
> 
> DDD has itself and the emulated HHH stuck in recursive emulation.
> 
> IS THE CONCEPT OF UNREACHABLE CODE OVER YOUR HEAD?
> IS THE CONCEPT OF UNREACHABLE CODE OVER YOUR HEAD?
> IS THE CONCEPT OF UNREACHABLE CODE OVER YOUR HEAD?

But the code IS reachable, since your defined HHH does abort and return, 
since that is what you says it does. IT is just that no HHH can reach 
that point in its partial emulation of the DDD that calls it.

> 
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
>    printf("Fred is too dumb to know this code is never reached!\n");
> }
> 
> 

Which isn't the code being trace, proving your. just a pathological liar.