Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Copyright for "simulating halt decider" by Olcott for many years
 --- proves itself correct
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2025 15:11:05 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vq2hha$ug75$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vptlfu$3st19$9@dont-email.me> <vpug3h$50td$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq06al$eljf$1@dont-email.me> <vq06ja$dfve$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq075c$eljf$3@dont-email.me> <vq08gi$f06n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq0b4u$f3k3$4@dont-email.me> <vq0crn$fhth$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq0dl2$f3k3$10@dont-email.me> <3hg7sjhnq962dnkue9cg8ftccfbsf7rpfd@4ax.com>
 <fbc1c3d5507d1d175bdadbbfde51c10bdda1b437@i2pn2.org>
 <vq19ae$nkcf$1@dont-email.me> <vq1pbq$q7t4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq23r8$s54f$1@dont-email.me> <vq24r7$ru20$5@dont-email.me>
 <vq2fon$ntk1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2025 22:11:07 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f1890a324b06dc16a921f95b9719194f";
	logging-data="999653"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19/OKBxrEpODTd9Npi+oJud"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DRdJoP4+2U46X31GOhExsjXrOXE=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250302-6, 3/2/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vq2fon$ntk1$1@dont-email.me>

On 3/2/2025 2:40 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
> 
>    http://www.cuboid.me.uk/anw/G12FCO/lect18.html
> 
> [start at the third paragraph], published in 1996, wherein is the proof
> that a simulating halt decider can no more exist than any other halt
> decider 

[the third paragraph]
For these cases, we can turn to our second weapon -- emulation. We want 
to know whether a program halts, so we try it. If it halts, then we know 
the answer. If it doesn't halt, then `it must be in a loop', so we 
monitor its state and `detect the loop'. Sadly, although this is in one 
sense correct, it is a false dichotomy. At any given moment as the 
emulation proceeds, we are in one of not two but three states: the 
program has halted, or it is looping, or it is still running and has not 
yet entered a loop. It's the third case that kills us -- we just have to 
keep going, and wait for one of the other two things to happen. The 
trouble is that it may be that neither of them ever happens -- which is 
why `it must be in a loop' was in quotes above.

_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]

That analysis is derived from an incorrect perspective.
DD emulated by HHH according to the behavior that DD
specifies cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
and terminate normally.

This process computes the mapping from the actual input
(not any other damn thing) finite string to the non
terminating behavior that this finite specifies when
it calls its own emulator in recursive emulation.

Another different instance that does not call its own
emulator in recursive emulation is not the same damn thing.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer