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 simulating halt decider
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 12:40:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <vbnbup$2g6vo$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb6o5t$3a95s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb71a3$3b4ub$4@dont-email.me> <vbbmuc$8nbb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbcbe4$bdtb$3@dont-email.me> <vbeoge$q2ph$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbeprp$punj$7@dont-email.me> <vbh2q8$19og2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhm1i$1c7u5$11@dont-email.me>
 <1f7a86cb3710a6e34ece86b41bbee138a8de2ddf@i2pn2.org>
 <vbk7ng$1u1js$3@dont-email.me> <vbmka0$2ce7j$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 19:40:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ce886c54a33fbb99da3cdb312c5f423c";
	logging-data="2628600"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+G4kkZ396ksm2QOAReROqu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tXa30ea5VWffapKFmNj1TUjKdCg=
In-Reply-To: <vbmka0$2ce7j$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4001

On 9/9/2024 5:57 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 08.sep.2024 om 15:10 schreef olcott:
>> On 9/8/2024 7:46 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:56:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 9/7/2024 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-09-06 11:42:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>> from its finite string input to the behavior that this finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> string specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, only whether
>>>>>>>>>>> that behaviour is finite or infinite.
>>> Like Sipser said.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038c4 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>>>>>>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation 
>>>>>>>>>> Stopped
>>>>>>>>>> Hence  HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said.
>>>>>>>>> Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say.
>>>>>>>>> HHH terminates, so DDD obviously terminates, too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state.
>>>>>>> If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does not return and
>>>>>>> therefore is not a ceicder.
>>>>>> The directly executed HHH is a decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the called HHH behaves differently from the direcly executed HHH
>>>>> then the DDD is not relevant to classic proofs of the impossibility of
>>>>> a halting decider.
>>>>> If you can't show encoding rules that permit the encoidng of the
>>>>> behaviour of the directly executed DDD to HHH then HHH is not a 
>>>>> halting
>>>>> decider.
>>>> I SHOW THE ACTUAL EXECUTION TRACE AND EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH IT.
>>> Your implementation is buggy.
>>>
>>
>> X86utm is based on a world class x86 emulator that
>> has had decades of development effort. It has been
>> trivial to verify to the execution traces that it
>> produces are correct for three years.
> 
> And the simulation by this unmodified X86utm showed that the DDD based 
> on the HHH that aborts, halts.
> 

The freaking question has never been when DDD is aborted does
it stop running? I told you the question too many times and
you always dishonestly change it.

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