Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:04:11 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <vbsf1t$3mi61$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> <vbqnqi$381t6$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 18:04:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="982406b495a23fb085e95e628e5cc8c0";
	logging-data="3885249"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18mcaC+aEZwliPi2LouzpTd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VHC1eECSiA2qEgHJvv/ear9T/aM=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vbqnqi$381t6$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5970

Op 11.sep.2024 om 02:21 schreef olcott:
> 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.
>

It is a verified fact the the finite string describes a halting program 
according to the semantics of the x86 language. The direct execution, 
the simulation by the unmodified world class simulator and even by HHH1 
show that the instructions at 0000217f, 00002182, 00002183 and the 
program halt are reachable.
The semantics of the x86 language allow only one behaviour for this 
finite string.
The verified fact is that olcott's modified simulator HHH stops the 
simulation before it reaches these reachable instructions.
It is a verified fact that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

With such overwhelming proofs, olcott should stop claiming that it is 
counter-factual.
That olcott's  dream of the simulation with a non-aborting HHH starts 
with the same four instructions, does not prove that the full behaviour 
is also the same. That HHH's twin brother does not halt does not prove 
that HHH itself does not halt.