Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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: Simulating termination analyzers by dummies --- criteria is met
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:46:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <v5btcg$v0vb$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v4oaqu$f9p5$1@dont-email.me> <v4qn65$10qh6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4qnkf$a0nm$5@i2pn2.org> <v4qpvo$10qh6$2@dont-email.me>
 <v4qrmd$a0nm$6@i2pn2.org> <v4qrr8$15beg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4qsav$a0nn$3@i2pn2.org> <v4qtaa$15gc5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4qu3p$a0nm$7@i2pn2.org> <v4quti$15nn8$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4rrge$bivn$1@i2pn2.org> <v4s1l0$1boeu$6@dont-email.me>
 <v4seq5$cbcu$1@i2pn2.org> <v4sfuo$1enie$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4shpp$cbcu$2@i2pn2.org> <v4st0g$1hjnp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4sull$2f03$1@news.muc.de> <v4svmn$1i267$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4u8cu$1o15$1@news.muc.de> <v4uoj9$1vpm0$10@dont-email.me>
 <v50ena$2ecrp$1@dont-email.me> <v50fcc$2efr5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v51gli$2kgr3$1@dont-email.me> <v51hgt$2kigj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5393g$3286d$3@dont-email.me> <v53ul0$35vak$5@dont-email.me>
 <v560kp$3lqrq$2@dont-email.me> <v56i4t$3or0r$2@dont-email.me>
 <v56jfu$onl3$4@i2pn2.org> <v56m2g$3or0r$8@dont-email.me>
 <v58ki1$8e51$1@dont-email.me> <v59726$bko6$2@dont-email.me>
 <v5b6rj$qq4o$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 15:46:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30c92b316077fe98558b44dd129a1438";
	logging-data="1016811"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lddQhhysonQQIjJsUdG2P"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IG2++6PA3FHSQYNhRs26h5UrMYI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v5b6rj$qq4o$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6731

On 6/24/2024 2:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-23 13:13:42 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/23/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-22 14:11:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/22/2024 8:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/22/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am the sole inventor of the simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben Bacarisse contacted professor Sipser to verify that he
>>>>>> really did says this. The details are in this forum about
>>>>>> the same date.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/dp/113318779X/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <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>
>>>>>
>>>>> And, as I remember, he also verified that he disagrees with your 
>>>>> definition of correct simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Ben also verified that the criteria have been met*
>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
>>>>>>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
>>>>>>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, Ben was willing to do what I am not that you can prove that, 
>>>>> by your definition, H can show that it "must" abort its simulation 
>>>>> or the input will run forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, just like me, he also agrees that this is NOT the defintion of 
>>>>> Halting, so H is just shown to be a correct (partial) POOP decider 
>>>>> but ot a Halt Decider, not even for that one input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
>>>>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
>>>>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>>>>  >
>>>>  > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The
>>>>  > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H
>>>>  > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.
>>>>  >
>>>> *Ben agrees that the criteria is met for the input*
>>>>
>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
>>>> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function
>>>> is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the
>>>> job of the function, i.e. *given an input of the function*
>>>> *domain it can return the corresponding output*
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>
>>>> *Ben disagrees that the criteria is met for the non-input*
>>>> Yet no one here can stay focused on the fact that non-inputs
>>>> *DO NOT COUNT*
>>>
>>> In particular, you can't. You have insisted that your "decider"
>>> or "anlyzer" (or whatever word you happen to use) H or HH (or
>>> hwatever name you happen to use) must return false because a
>>> non-input (where instead of the actually called function another
>>> function that does not halt is called) does not halt.
>>>
>>
>> You said it backwards. When I say that I am not guilty and did
>> not rob the liquor store you cannot paraphrase this as he admitted
>> that he robbed the liquor store.
> 
> The important qestion is not whether you admit but what the police
> finds out.
> 
>> H performs a sequence of finite string transformations on
>> its finite input of x86 machine code. These transformations
>> include that D calls H(D,D) while being simulated by H. In
>> such a case the call from D to H(D,D) cannot possibly return.
> 
> Which is all we need to know about H in ordet to determine that
> it is not a decider.
> 

void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}

_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.


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