Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!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 --- Ridiculously
 stupid
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 11:35:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <vbsgsu$3mr32$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>
 <vbpbps$2uib0$1@dont-email.me> <vbsf5t$3mi21$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 18:35:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fbca11ebde057c24ab486512c233e96";
	logging-data="3894370"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188oMKC4OKeL1xTmtneWP/w"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ugNObqygIiAdODIFdLkGfG11X1k=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbsf5t$3mi21$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7882

On 9/11/2024 11:06 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> [Repost due to Giganews server problems. Sorry if post eventually 
> appears multiple times...]
> On 10/09/2024 12:50, 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. 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.
> 
> Because his HHH has correctly identified his "Infinite recursive 
> simulation" pattern in the behaviour of DDD.  To PO, that means DDD is 
> non-halting, EOD.
> 
> PO is aware that the /full/ simulation of DDD() (e.g. as shown by HHH1 
> simulating) shows DDD terminating - 

Ridiculously stupid to simply ignore that DDD calls
HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation and does not call HHH1
in recursive emulation.

I saw your identical twin brother Bill rob the liquor
store thus proving that you (John) robbed the liquor store.

This is true even though I could see that Bill has a
mole on his right cheek that you (John) do not have.

> so how can it be that when HHH spots 
> its infamous pattern, DDD is "exhibiting non-halting behaviour", despite 
> its "actual" behaviour being halting PLAINLY VISIBLE IN THE SIMULATION 
> TRACE FROM HHH1?   Hmmm.
> 
> This is a dilemma for PO and he has no sensible answer to this.  It is 
> demonstrated that DDD() halts (e.g. using HHH1 to simulate), and yet it 
> is also "demonstrated" that DDD "exhibits non-halting behaviour" by 
> matching his "non-halting" pattern (EOD).  The ONLY POSSIBILITY (in PO's 
> mind) is that the behaviour must somehow be /different/ between HHH1 
> simulating DDD (=halts) and HHH simulating DDD (="exhibits non-halting 
> behaviour").  It does not matter to PO that the traces show that the 
> behaviour is EXACTLY THE SAME regardless of the simulator (..up to the 
> point where one simulator chooses to abort of course..).  Even when the 
> two traces are displayed for him side by side and match x86 instruction 
> for x86 instruction, PO is not convinced.
> 
> The more obvious explanation that PO is simply Wrong about his "Infinite 
> recursive simulation" pattern never occurs to him, and yet he also never 
> seriously attempts any proof that the rule is sound.  The only attempt I 
> recall started by PO stipulating an axiom that said that when a trace 
> satisfies the test conditions, it can never halt!  (Yeah, this despite 
> the HHH1 trace output showing that the pattern matching [*] AND the 
> simulated DDD proceding to halt some time later.  TBF that output may 
> not have been published at that point...)
> 
> This was the state of play 2 or 3 years ago, and absolutely nothing has 
> progressed since then, other than the passing of 100000(?) posts arguing 
> the same points over and over!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike.
> 
> [*] the pattern occurs in HHH1's simulated DDD trace and is visible in 
> the published output, although HHH1 was /not checking/ for that pattern 
> due to miscodings on PO's part, which is why HHH1 did not abort the 
> simulation, despite supposedly being a copy of HHH.
> 


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