Path: ...!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: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 06:04:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <vbuhsp$7g4h$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>
 <vbu6oa$59vd$1@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 13:04:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="273dca7c823af3d19498bfc27cf643dc";
	logging-data="245905"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX192xOLOL4cgagEBEoxpR0e2"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WTI1iiQHO5LXT0EISi2/hUwmbyE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbu6oa$59vd$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5875

On 9/12/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 

It is ridiculously stupid to simply ignore the verified
fact that DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation and
DDD DOES NOT call HHH1(DDD) in recursive emulation.



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