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, 5 Sep 2024 22:35:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f0019655ae22796ceb144f8c5fc3bcd99509b74f@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$3@dont-email.me>
 <cb6a625f1737dafed130e2bdad14395d95566ba1@i2pn2.org>
 <vbcl61$d8p0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 02:35:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="993900"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vbcl61$d8p0$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3893
Lines: 78

On 9/5/24 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> 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. No valid
>>>> C interpretaion of allows DDD to continue forever after HHH jas
>>>> terminated.
>>> 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.
>> We have noticed.
>>
>>> Show the details of how DDD emulated by HHH reaches its own machine
>>> address 0000217f.
> 
> 
>> By HHH returning, which we are guaranteed from its definition as a
>> decider.
>>
> 
> Are you trying to get away with a lie by erasing the context?
> 
> _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, just shows your HHH isn't doing a correct emulaiton of the input 
program.

It needs to go to 000015d2

> 
> How the F--- Does the emulated HHH return?
> Show the exact freaking steps of how the emulated HHH returns !!!

See your 200 page trace of x86utm emulating your HHH deciding on DDD.

Change the code of main at the begining to the identical code (just at a 
different address) in DDD.

That is the trace that a CORRECT emulation of the input to HHH should do.

The fact that HHH aborts its emulation before it gets there just proves 
that you LIE that HHH does a correct emulation of its input.

Sorry, that is the facts that you appear to be too stupid to understand.


> 
> 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)
> then what comes next???
>