| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vbrvln$3im2p$2@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: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 06:41:42 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 102 Message-ID: <vbrvln$3im2p$2@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> <vbqnqi$381t6$1@dont-email.me> <vbrh87$3fttk$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 13:41:43 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fbca11ebde057c24ab486512c233e96"; logging-data="3758169"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19rfr3/aSuyQoq9vXROvr2/" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:qtmk1rl5vh3hOkd4SyOj/oN+If8= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <vbrh87$3fttk$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 5318 On 9/11/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-09-11 00:21:36 +0000, olcott said: > >> 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* > > A halt decider is required to predict about the actual execution, > not a couterfactual assumption. > False assumption. A halt decider must compute the mapping that its input finite string specifies. It is ridiculously stupid to assume that the fact that DDD calls its own emulator does not change its behavior relative to not calling its own emulator. Why do you have a religious conviction to this stupid mistake? -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer