Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vq50om$1er5l$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Copyright for "simulating halt decider" by Olcott for many years
 --- proves itself correct
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2025 20:43:18 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <vq50om$1er5l$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$1@dont-email.me> <vq2hha$ug75$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq2shm$ntk1$2@dont-email.me> <vq2uq3$vkkb$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq3qpc$18icg$3@dont-email.me> <vq4e84$1b4no$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2025 20:43:19 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="67f8e0428f07291ea60f346a9310c8ac";
	logging-data="1535157"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18iig0ayUxt1NFFEOPOoODy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jrs0uqkFjQ5NoMIyxXHB20k38AU=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vq4e84$1b4no$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4581

Op 03.mrt.2025 om 15:27 schreef olcott:
> On 3/3/2025 2:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 03.mrt.2025 om 01:57 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/2/2025 6:19 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>> On 02/03/2025 21:11, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/2/2025 2:40 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>>>    http://www.cuboid.me.uk/anw/G12FCO/lect18.html
>>>>>> [start at the third paragraph], [...]
>>>>> [the third paragraph]
>>>>
>>>>      [Note that I said "start at ...", not "look only at ...".]
>>>>
>>>>> _DD()
>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>      Not interested;  sorry.  I was concerned only to point out that
>>>> the idea of a "simulating halt decider", or any similar phrase, was not
>>>> new in 2004, but has been well-known for many [at least 60] years.  If
>>>> you choose to waste your remaining time on this planet trying to do the
>>>> impossible, go ahead.  I shan't be joining you, so this will be my last
>>>> contribution to the debate unless something interesting crops up.  "DD"
>>>> and "HHH" and similar aren't in the least bit interesting to me;  I'm
>>>> astonished that others are so fascinated, but that's up to them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lots of people rejected the idea of simulation as an
>>> option so you made no actually relevant point at all.
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> The new thing that I discovered is that DD emulated
>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach the self-contradictory
>>> portion thus cannot possibly thwart a correct termination
>>> status decision.
>>
>> And Olcott thought it was a clever idea to use a simulator that gets 
>> stuck in recursively simulating itself, so that it could not even 
>> reach the self-contradictory part.
> 
> HHH has no idea that it is emulating itself emulating DD.
> HHH  does see that its emulation of DD does match the
> infinite recursion behavior pattern.


In fact it does, if it didn't it could not assume infinite recursion

> 
>> Olcott did (does) not realise that such an HHH can only report about 
>> its own behaviour, not that of its input.
> 
> HHH sees DD call the same function with the same params
> twice in sequence and HHH also sees that there are no
> conditional branch instructions between the invocation
> of DD and its call to HHH(DD).
But the programmer of HHH forgot to count the conditional branch 
instructions inside HHH called by DD up to the start of the inner 
simulation of DD, so he made a mistake about the behaviour of the DD. 
The direct execution and a correct simulator takes into account those 
conditional branch instruction. That is why HHH differs: it misses the 
correct behaviour of the function called by DD.