Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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 18:23:49 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <vbsg6n$3mme2$3@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>
 <vbpbps$2uib0$1@dont-email.me> <vbs055$3im2p$4@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 18:23:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="982406b495a23fb085e95e628e5cc8c0";
	logging-data="3889602"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19VMZhMBiH3Jd0TJz1KO9FV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FQHVDMXhOHFeS+twD04IS9a7SzM=
In-Reply-To: <vbs055$3im2p$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 5577

Op 11.sep.2024 om 13:49 schreef olcott:
> On 9/10/2024 6:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 09.sep.2024 om 20:19 schreef olcott:
>>> 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!!!
>>>
>>
>> It seems olcott also knows that HHH fails to reach the machine address 
>> 00002183, because it stop the simulation too soon.
> 
> No the issue is the you insist on remaining too stupid
> to understand unreachable code.
> 
> void Infinite_Recursion()
> {
>    Infinite_Recursion();
>    OutString("Can't possibly get here!");

Olcott keeps dreaming of infinite recursions, even when HHH aborts after 
two cycles. Two is not infinite.

void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
   printf ("Olcott thinks this is never printed.\n");
}

The end of the program is reachable, proven by direct execution, by the 
world class simulator and even by HHH1. That HHH stops the simulation 
before it has reached this code, does not prove that it is unreachable.
Olcott does not understand what reachable code is.

> }
> 
>>  A correct simulation by the unmodified world class simulator shows 
>> that it does reach machine address 00002183. Even HHH1 shows it. But 
>> HHH fails to machine address 00002183.
>> Why does olcott ignore this truth? The evidence is overwhelming.
> 
>