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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DD correctly simulated by HH --- never stops running without
 aborting its simulation
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:14:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3v847$39ri5$7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3svh3$1k5vr$1@dont-email.me> <v3t0bs$1infa$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3u7th$1v0li$1@dont-email.me> <v3v3ka$22vrk$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:14:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3468869"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3v3ka$22vrk$6@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4289
Lines: 85

On 6/7/24 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2024 1:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-06-06 18:49:32 +0000, Rafael Doofenschmirtz said:
>>
>>> On 6/06/24 20:35, olcott wrote:
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>   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.
>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>
>>>> *Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever*
>>>> *stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH*
>>>>
>>>> _DD()
>>>> [00001e12] 55         push ebp
>>>> [00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
>>>> [00001e15] 51         push ecx
>>>> [00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
>>>> [00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
>>>> [00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>>>>
>>>
>>> after HH returns 0, the program counter proceeds to address 00001e23, 
>>> and then, a few instructions later DD also returns
>>
> 
> Because DD correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive
> simulation until HH aborts its simulation of DD

And the problem is that your definition of "The input correect simulated 
by the decider" is a meaningless phrase with respect to deciding the 
halting behavior of the machine described by the input.



> 
> *HH never returns anything to any simulated DD AND*

Only to anythibng simulated by itself, and that is part of the problem 
with your definition of simulated by the decider.

> 
> If simulating halt decider HH correctly simulates its input DD
> until HH correctly determines that its simulated DD would never
> stop running unless aborted then

But the way you use that is an meaningless concept, as you change the 
input as you imagine HH being something else, and thus you are NOT 
looking at the behavior of a machine described by the input but some 
ill-defined behavior of a "template" which does things that makes it NOT 
the equivalent of a Turing Machine (and thus shows you are NOT working 
on the Linz or Sipser proof).


> 
> HH can abort its simulation of DD and correctly report that DD
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

But it did its analysis on something that wasn't the actual input given 
to it as seen as the description of a full program as halting is defined 
for.

Thus, either you are just admitting that you are not working on the 
halting problem, or that you just don't understand the meaning of terms 
like what a "program" is considered to be, or you are just a 
pathologocal liar.

> 
> That is what HH does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> If HH ever returns. The challenge does not specify anything about
>> HH other than it simulates the same DD. In particular, the last
>> shown line may cause HH to simulate itself, depending on how HH
>> interpretes it.
>>
>