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: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 19:21:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <vbqnqi$381t6$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>
 <c600a691fab10473128eed2a1fad2a429ad4733f@i2pn2.org>
 <vbh2sp$19ov0$1@dont-email.me> <vbhm3c$1c7u5$12@dont-email.me>
 <vbkdph$1v80k$1@dont-email.me> <vbne7e$2g6vo$6@dont-email.me>
 <vbp1d7$2sg7q$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 02:21:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fbca11ebde057c24ab486512c233e96";
	logging-data="3409830"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YC6snjvirWXnJbfltrJ48"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NRJA9wp/I1Gx0OwZGUpvEPWjj5Q=
In-Reply-To: <vbp1d7$2sg7q$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4970

On 9/10/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-09-09 18:19:26 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 9/8/2024 9:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-09-07 13:57:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 9/7/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-09-07 05:12:19 +0000, joes said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:42:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> What does simulating it change about that?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the simulation is incorrect it may change anything.
>>>>>
>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>>>> PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>>>
>>> However, a correct simultation faithfully imitates the original
>>> behaviour.
>>>
>>
>> _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]
>>
>> A correct emulation obeys the x86 machine code even
>> if this machine code catches the machine on fire.
>>
>> It is impossible for an emulation of DDD by HHH to
>> reach machine address 00002183 AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
> 
> A correct emulation of DDD does reach the machine address 0000217f and
> a little later 00002183. 

*That is counter-factual and you cannot possibly show otherwise*
*Here are the verified facts*
*any attempt to show otherwise cannot possibly succeed*

DDD emulated by the directly executed HHH derived these steps:
00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a

thus HHH emulated by the directly executed HHH cannot possibly
derive and other steps and I have proved that it does not
derive any other steps by the actual execution trace by a world
class x86 emulator libx86emu.


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