Path: ...!news.mixmin.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: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 08:08:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <vb9m4j$3rh1t$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb4u1g$2u7sn$4@dont-email.me>
 <vb5drq$30qlu$1@dont-email.me> <vb6d25$38dum$2@dont-email.me>
 <vb7309$3b4ub$9@dont-email.me> <vb9ah9$3psb3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2024 15:08:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dd43bdf9b61f877c9b4c44ca800456cb";
	logging-data="4047933"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/caWf0GVGV8KbHxbKBVZ8Y"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:s2stUDMc7vGypMUp8jawL4zlMsI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vb9ah9$3psb3$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4646

On 9/4/2024 4:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 03.sep.2024 om 15:29 schreef olcott:
>> On 9/3/2024 2:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 03.sep.2024 om 00:22 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.
>>>>> If HHH includes code to see a 'special condition' and aborts and 
>>>>> halts, then it should also simulate the HHH that includes this same 
>>>>> code and 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DDD has itself and the emulated HHH stuck in recursive emulation.
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> It is not DDD. It is HHH that has the problem when trying to simulate 
>>> itself.
> 
> Olcott removed the proof that I am right:
> 
>         int main() {
>           return HHH(main);
>         }
> 
> where HHH halts, but claims that it does not halt. No DDD needed to 
> prove that HHH reports false negatives.
> 
> Since he cannot prove that I am wrong, he thinks an ad hominem attack 
> will help.
> 
>>
>> It does this correctly yet beyond your intellectual capacity.
>>
> 
> Then he shows again the 'trace' of an incorrect simulation.
> 
>> _DDD()
>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>> [00002183] c3         ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>
>> Instructions from machine address 00002172 through
>> machine address 0000217a are emulated.
>>
>> What instruction of DDD do you believe comes next?
> 
> Assuming a correct simulation:
> The next instruction would be that at 000015d2 in HHH. 

 >> What instruction of DDD do you believe comes next?

What instruction
of DDD
of DDD
of DDD
of DDD
of DDD
do you believe comes next?


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