Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 11:48:43 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <vbp15b$2sedk$1@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> <vbkdvj$1v8tm$1@dont-email.me> <vbnebo$2g6vo$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 10:48:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d3990580848c58740f0981d5e61ee6bd";
	logging-data="3029428"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/h8TC2SLBqIzDWqYoZ7VDh"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qqj3KCgqW2lFoeHL+SsUnQODQYg=
Bytes: 4351

On 2024-09-09 18:21:44 +0000, olcott said:

> On 9/8/2024 9:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-07 13:56:02 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038c4
>>>>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
>>>>>>>>> [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>> [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:14e2ec
>>>>>>>>> [00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>> [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> os DDD obviously terminates, too. No valid
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 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.
>> 
>> There are no encoding rules in the actual execution trace.
>> 
> 
> The x86 execution trace is encoded in the x86 language.
> Why do you insist on lying about this?

Your question is ill-posed unless one believes a lie.

-- 
Mikko