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 22:47:50 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e811b9ed6bb312f0b94c139f2fc215ca060e90cf@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 02:47:51 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1470041"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vbne7e$2g6vo$6@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4245
Lines: 76

On 9/9/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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!!!
> 

But you have posted the trace that shows what it would be, so you are 
just a liar.

Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a pathetic ignorant 
pathological lying idiot that refuses to look at the truth because you 
can't understand it.