Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike
 Terry Error
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 07:45:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <v3pmlj$v133$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v3j20v$3gm10$2@dont-email.me>
 <J_CdnTaA96jxpcD7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87h6eamkgf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v3kcdj$3stk9$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3l7uo$13cp$8@dont-email.me> <v3lcat$228t$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3mq9j$chc3$1@dont-email.me> <v3mrli$chc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <_gWdnbwuZPJP2sL7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v3nkqr$h7f9$3@dont-email.me> <v3o0ph$31rmn$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v3o3og$jm9q$2@dont-email.me> <v3pbas$338rb$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 14:45:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dbcb5a2e000d59c1dda264f94a647a93";
	logging-data="1016931"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+X5v2vvZjtHtAtfv3EJN+d"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:m9fbstKGupd2FUunYfCw/Il+gGc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3pbas$338rb$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4917

On 6/5/2024 4:32 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 04 Jun 2024 17:16:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/4/2024 4:26 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Tue, 04 Jun 2024 13:02:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/4/2024 11:58 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 04/06/2024 11:52, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 04.jun.2024 om 12:29 schreef Fred. Zwarts:
>>>>>>> Op 03.jun.2024 om 23:24 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 3:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jun.2024 om 14:20 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 4:42 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> writes:
> 
>>>>> None of their /simulations by H/ reach their final state.  Obviously
>>>>> there's a huge distinction between the abstract concept of a
>>>>> computation/halting, and a partial simulation of that computation by
>>>>> some other program, and I'm surprised anyone (not you specifically)
>>>>> tolerates confusion on that point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suppose P(I) is some computation that halts after 13422 steps.
>>>>> Clearly a partial simulation of P(I) by H could be abandoned
>>>>> ("aborted") after 8333 steps.  So the /partial simulation by H/ "does
>>>>> not halt", but the computation P(I) of course halts.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not trying to suggest that considering the "halting" behaviour of
>>>>> a partial simulation by a specific program is a /useful/ thing to be
>>>>> looking at, but none the less that is what PO is doing...
>>>>>
>>>> The meaning of these words prove that I am correct about how partial
>>>> simulations correctly determine the halt status of their non-halting
>>>> inputs.
>>>> <Professor Sipser agreed>
>>>> </Professor Sipser agreed>
>>>
>>> You completely missed the point. The simulator absolutely can keep
>>> track of repeating states; it just can't halt if its input doesn't,
>>
>> You don't seem to know the first thing about deciders, in that they must
>> always halt.
> You don't seem to know the first thing about simulators, in that they can
> never abort.

I am apparently the sole inventor of a simulating halt decider.
A simulator correctly simulates and typically does not halt
when its input does not halt. A halt decider must always halt.
When we combine these two terms together then we get a simulator
that always halts.

<Professor Sipser agreed>
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
   until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
   stop running unless aborted then

   H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</Professor Sipser agreed>

Ben Bacarisse checked Professor Sipser really did agree to those
verbatim words, he did not agree or disagree with any other words
in any of his communications with me.

> So why can't reach past line 4 if H halts and returns from infinite
> recursion?
> 

Anyone with sufficient expertise in the semantics of either C
or x86 language or both already knows why and everyone else does
not have the required prerequisite knowledge to understand why.

*Here is the complete proof all over again all in one place*
https://liarparadox.org/DD_correctly_simulated_by_HH_is_Proven.pdf

>>> because that is a difference in behaviour which it is not allowed to
>>> have.
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer