Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vbp15b$2sedk$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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