| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<f6d75a87976214126cb4b8e4f3e3279fc409aacc@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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 --- Ridiculously stupid Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 19:57:20 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <f6d75a87976214126cb4b8e4f3e3279fc409aacc@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> <vbpbps$2uib0$1@dont-email.me> <vbsf5t$3mi21$1@dont-email.me> <vbsgsu$3mr32$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 23:57:20 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1715710"; 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: <vbsgsu$3mr32$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7966 Lines: 149 On 9/11/24 12:35 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/11/2024 11:06 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >> [Repost due to Giganews server problems. Sorry if post eventually >> appears multiple times...] >> On 10/09/2024 12:50, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 09.sep.2024 om 20:19 schreef olcott: >>>> 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!!! >>>> >>> >>> It seems olcott also knows that HHH fails to reach the machine >>> address 00002183, because it stop the simulation too soon. A correct >>> simulation by the unmodified world class simulator shows that it does >>> reach machine address 00002183. Even HHH1 shows it. But HHH fails to >>> machine address 00002183. >>> Why does olcott ignore this truth? The evidence is overwhelming. >> >> Because his HHH has correctly identified his "Infinite recursive >> simulation" pattern in the behaviour of DDD. To PO, that means DDD is >> non-halting, EOD. >> >> PO is aware that the /full/ simulation of DDD() (e.g. as shown by HHH1 >> simulating) shows DDD terminating - > > Ridiculously stupid to simply ignore that DDD calls > HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation and does not call HHH1 > in recursive emulation. He isn't. He is just claiming we need to CORRECTLY handle what it does. > > I saw your identical twin brother Bill rob the liquor > store thus proving that you (John) robbed the liquor store. > > This is true even though I could see that Bill has a > mole on his right cheek that you (John) do not have. Your bad analogies just prove how stupid and ignorant you are. > >> so how can it be that when HHH spots its infamous pattern, DDD is >> "exhibiting non-halting behaviour", despite its "actual" behaviour >> being halting PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE SIMULATION TRACE FROM HHH1? Hmmm. >> >> This is a dilemma for PO and he has no sensible answer to this. It is >> demonstrated that DDD() halts (e.g. using HHH1 to simulate), and yet >> it is also "demonstrated" that DDD "exhibits non-halting behaviour" by >> matching his "non-halting" pattern (EOD). The ONLY POSSIBILITY (in >> PO's mind) is that the behaviour must somehow be /different/ between >> HHH1 simulating DDD (=halts) and HHH simulating DDD (="exhibits non- >> halting behaviour"). It does not matter to PO that the traces show >> that the behaviour is EXACTLY THE SAME regardless of the simulator >> (..up to the point where one simulator chooses to abort of course..). >> Even when the two traces are displayed for him side by side and match >> x86 instruction for x86 instruction, PO is not convinced. >> >> The more obvious explanation that PO is simply Wrong about his >> "Infinite recursive simulation" pattern never occurs to him, and yet >> he also never seriously attempts any proof that the rule is sound. >> The only attempt I recall started by PO stipulating an axiom that said >> that when a trace satisfies the test conditions, it can never halt! >> (Yeah, this despite the HHH1 trace output showing that the pattern >> matching [*] AND the simulated DDD proceding to halt some time later. >> TBF that output may not have been published at that point...) >> >> This was the state of play 2 or 3 years ago, and absolutely nothing >> has progressed since then, other than the passing of 100000(?) posts >> arguing the same points over and over! >> >> Regards, >> Mike. >> >> [*] the pattern occurs in HHH1's simulated DDD trace and is visible in >> the published output, although HHH1 was /not checking/ for that >> pattern due to miscodings on PO's part, which is why HHH1 did not >> abort the simulation, despite supposedly being a copy of HHH. >> > >