Path: ...!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: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:28:58 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <vb998q$3plip$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb4u1g$2u7sn$4@dont-email.me>
 <vb59cg$3057o$1@dont-email.me> <vb6ck3$38dum$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb72nn$3b4ub$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2024 11:28:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ed9ea28463654a537184d56af58bea5f";
	logging-data="3987033"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1967ji0fTJZeWS+iQ3+sJOL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rKAbLrlRFs17kuQYp/KhIqcGHOk=
In-Reply-To: <vb72nn$3b4ub$8@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3394

Op 03.sep.2024 om 15:25 schreef olcott:
> On 9/3/2024 2:07 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 02.sep.2024 om 23:06 schreef olcott:
>>> On 9/2/2024 12:52 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 02.sep.2024 om 18:38 schreef olcott:
>>>>> A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes
>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the
>>>>> behavior that this finite string specifies.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the finite string machine string machine
>>>>> description specifies that it cannot possibly
>>>>> reach its own final halt state then this machine
>>>>> description specifies non-halting behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> A halt decider never ever computes the mapping
>>>>> for the computation that itself is contained within.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless there is a pathological relationship between
>>>>> the halt decider H and its input D the direct execution
>>>>> of this input D will always have identical behavior to
>>>>> D correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Simulating Termination Analyzer H Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>
>>>>> A correct emulation of DDD by HHH only requires that HHH
>>>>> emulate the instructions of DDD** including when DDD calls
>>>>> HHH in recursive emulation such that HHH emulates itself
>>>>> emulating DDD.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, it should simulate *itself* and not a hypothetical other HHH 
>>>> with different behaviour.
>>>
>>> It is emulating the exact same freaking machine code
>>> that the x86utm operating system is emulating.
>>
>> Even the best simulator will go wrong if it is given the wrong input.
> 
> That is a stupid thing to say, you can see it was
> given the correct input.
The simulator is not allowed to change the behaviour of the input. Not 
by using a Root variable, to make the simulated behaviour different, not 
by assuming that it should simulate as if the abort code was not 
present, not by skipping the last few instructions of a halting program, 
not by simulating a hypothetical other program.
All these things make that the simulator is given the wrong input.
We have seen them in Olcott's description of the simulation.