Path: ...!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 halt decider
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 06:41:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <vbepoh$punj$6@dont-email.me>
References: <vb4npj$1kg8k$1@dont-email.me> <vb6i8p$39fhi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb72a4$3b4ub$6@dont-email.me> <vbbn7t$8ocm$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbcca2$bdtb$4@dont-email.me> <vbeo35$q1bv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2024 13:41:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="be3ab62c57446c7ddf1fbbd69383ba43";
	logging-data="850675"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ySx9TC6rSry5EgkpOkbeX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3abxJyxYrn3whfsrtyEFGVXx3DQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbeo35$q1bv$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3892

On 9/6/2024 6:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-09-05 13:39:14 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 9/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-03 13:17:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 9/3/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-09-02 16:06:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A correct halt decider is a Turing machine T with one accept state 
>>>>>> and one reject state such that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If T is executed with initial tape contents equal to an encoding 
>>>>>> of Turing machine X and its initial tape contents Y, and execution 
>>>>>> of a real machine X with initial tape contents Y eventually halts, 
>>>>>> the execution of T eventually ends up in the accept state and then 
>>>>>> stops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If T is executed with initial tape contents equal to an encoding 
>>>>>> of Turing machine X and its initial tape contents Y, and execution 
>>>>>> of a real machine X with initial tape contents Y does not 
>>>>>> eventually halt, the execution of T eventually ends up in the 
>>>>>> reject state and then stops.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your "definition" fails to specify "encoding". There is no standard
>>>>> encoding of Turing machines and tape contents.
>>>>
>>>> That is why I made the isomorphic x86utm system.
>>>> By failing to have such a concrete system all kinds
>>>> of false assumptions cannot be refuted.
>>>
>>> If it were isnomorphic the same false assumtipns would apply to both.
>>
>> They do yet I cannot provide every single details of
>> the source-code of the Turing machine because these
>> details would be too overwhelming.
>>
>> So instead every author makes a false assumption that
>> is simply believed to be true with no sufficient basis
>> to show that it isn't true.
>>
>> Once I prove my point as the x86 level I show how the
>> same thing applies to the Peter Linz proof.
> 
> Your recent presentations are so far from Linz' proof that they
> look totally unrelated.
> 

I must begin where people are so far no one even understands
the concept of recursive emulation.

_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]

Show the details of how DDD emulated by HHH
reaches its own machine address 0000217f.

00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)
then
00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)...

WHAT SHOULD THE NEXT STEPS BE?

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