Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Execution trace of simulating
 termination analyzer HHH on DDD input
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 21:44:37 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <vadd73$1ghhg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <va38qh$3ia79$1@dont-email.me>
 <7a1c569a699e79bfa146affbbae3eac7b91cd263@i2pn2.org>
 <va3f7o$3ipp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <729cc551062c13875686d266a5453a488058e81c@i2pn2.org>
 <va3kac$3nd5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <148bf4dd91f32379a6d81a621fb7ec3fc1e00db0@i2pn2.org>
 <va3lai$3nd5c$2@dont-email.me> <va46sd$3pr24$1@dont-email.me>
 <va4mle$3s0hu$1@dont-email.me>
 <5591ff08ed8f7b4bdf33813681e156b775efe0ec@i2pn2.org>
 <va63uu$2fo9$1@dont-email.me>
 <b0a86b6a1343ebb5f9112ae757768a7cbbc770b2@i2pn2.org>
 <va65r8$6ht7$1@dont-email.me>
 <26fadbf7b8cb5f93dbe18bffeff6e959251f9892@i2pn2.org>
 <va6b4n$7boc$1@dont-email.me>
 <b19eb2a29dacfa67f2f9ced0d03234e980f4c985@i2pn2.org>
 <va6edj$8f0p$1@dont-email.me>
 <e20689d26c224e4923146d425843348539ce6065@i2pn2.org>
 <va7tb3$h3la$1@dont-email.me>
 <2c6dfb2e8cdafc17fd833599dfba3843f56a281a@i2pn2.org>
 <vaavkc$128hl$1@dont-email.me> <vac6ns$1atfd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vacmpa$1d5dd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 21:44:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5dc1b659ae75107a5786388701ae8316";
	logging-data="1590832"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/UAuPAW6VeA1GriSBJbF/a"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qHNLiMy6Z0izrx8iX21MvPfwgiM=
In-Reply-To: <vacmpa$1d5dd$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 6357

Op 24.aug.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
> On 8/24/2024 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 23.aug.2024 om 23:40 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/23/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:42:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> Only IF it will in fact keep repeating, which is not the case.
>>>
>>> Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
>>> Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
>>> Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
>>> Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
> 
>> It is the case only if you still cheat with the Root variable, which 
>> makes that HHH processes a non-input, when it is requested to predict 
>> the behaviour of the input.
> 
> <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>
> 
> The fact is that it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating,
> thus *IT DOES* get the correct answer.

The fact is that it only happens because you make it so with cheating 
with the Root variable.
In the HHH without this cheat, the simulated and the simulating HHH are 
coded exactly in the same way to abort after two cycles. Therefore, the 
fact is that none of them would keep repeating.
It is just a dream that they would keep repeating. Dreams are no 
substitute for facts.

> 
>> The input given to HHH in fact halts, as is seen in the direct 
>> execution and in the correct simulation by HHH1.
> 
> The fact is that all deciders only report on the behavior
> specified by their inputs and non-inputs are non-of-their-damn
> business.

Exactly. So, they should not predict the behaviour of a hypothetical HHH 
that does not abort, but the input, which is a HHH that (when the cheat 
is removed) is coded to abort after two cycles.

> 
> When HHH computes the mapping from its finite string input
> of the x86 machine code of DDD to the the behavior that DDD
> specifies HHH correctly predicts that DDD cannot possibly
> stop running unless aborted.

And since the HHH is coded to abort, DDD *would* stop running. Dreaming 
that the 'unless' does not happen, i.e. dreaming of an HHH that does not 
abort, so that DDD does not stop does not help. Dreams are no substitute 
for facts.

> 
> The reason that this seem so strange is not that I am incorrect.

You are incorrect, but you keep dreaming.

> The reason is that everyone rejected simulation as a basis for a
> halt decider out-of-hand without review. Because of this they
> never saw the details of this behavior when a termination analyzer
> correctly emulates an input that calls itself.

The reason that others see that DDD halts, is because they are not 
dreaming, but they look at facts: it was proven by the direct execution 
and by the correct simulation by HHH1. And they understand what 
programming is.

> 
> They never notices that there could possibly be a case where
> the behavior of the emulation of the machine specified by its
> own Machine description (x86 language) could differ from
> the direct execution of this same machine.

And they were right, because the *definition* of a correct simulation is 
that it agrees with the direct execution.
The only reason why the could differ is an error in the simulator.

> 
>> But HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
> 
> The ONLY measure of simulated correctly is that each x86
> instruction of N instructions of DDD is emulated correctly and
> in the correct order. 

And without skipping the last (halting) part, and simulating the exact 
same instructions as in the direct simulation, starting with exactly the 
same initial values of all variables, so no cheating with the Root 
variable that differs depending on the level of simulation.

> 2 + 3 = 5 even if you don't believe in numbers.

And a halting program halts even if you do not believe in halting.