| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vbu6oa$59vd$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 10:54:50 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 97 Message-ID: <vbu6oa$59vd$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> <vbrh87$3fttk$1@dont-email.me> <vbrvln$3im2p$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 09:54:51 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="91f4cddf0d322860019ac3a2cba76d34"; logging-data="174061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX187INhbSP//mGvRKxYjUBJu" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:4S/FEfct94Ejzzwaqp+JiYvBUtU= Bytes: 5234 On 2024-09-11 11:41:42 +0000, olcott said: > 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. It is not an assumption. "In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem That definition obviously contains what I said above. -- Mikko