Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 08:08:35 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 101 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2024 15:08:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dd43bdf9b61f877c9b4c44ca800456cb"; logging-data="4047933"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/caWf0GVGV8KbHxbKBVZ8Y" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:s2stUDMc7vGypMUp8jawL4zlMsI= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4646 On 9/4/2024 4:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 03.sep.2024 om 15:29 schreef olcott: >> On 9/3/2024 2:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 03.sep.2024 om 00:22 schreef olcott: >>>> On 9/2/2024 12:52 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 02.sep.2024 om 18:38 schreef olcott: >>>>>> A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes >>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the >>>>>> behavior that this finite string specifies. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the finite string machine string machine >>>>>> description specifies that it cannot possibly >>>>>> reach its own final halt state then this machine >>>>>> description specifies non-halting behavior. >>>>>> >>>>>> A halt decider never ever computes the mapping >>>>>> for the computation that itself is contained within. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless there is a pathological relationship between >>>>>> the halt decider H and its input D the direct execution >>>>>> of this input D will always have identical behavior to >>>>>> D correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Simulating Termination Analyzer H Not Fooled by Pathological >>>>>> Input D* >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D >>>>>> >>>>>> A correct emulation of DDD by HHH only requires that HHH >>>>>> emulate the instructions of DDD** including when DDD calls >>>>>> HHH in recursive emulation such that HHH emulates itself >>>>>> emulating DDD. >>>>> >>>>> Indeed, it should simulate *itself* and not a hypothetical other >>>>> HHH with different behaviour. >>>>> If HHH includes code to see a 'special condition' and aborts and >>>>> halts, then it should also simulate the HHH that includes this same >>>>> code and >>>> >>>> >>>> DDD has itself and the emulated HHH stuck in recursive emulation. >>>> >>>> void DDD() >>>> { >>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>    return; >>>> } >>> >>> It is not DDD. It is HHH that has the problem when trying to simulate >>> itself. > > Olcott removed the proof that I am right: > >        int main() { >          return HHH(main); >        } > > where HHH halts, but claims that it does not halt. No DDD needed to > prove that HHH reports false negatives. > > Since he cannot prove that I am wrong, he thinks an ad hominem attack > will help. > >> >> It does this correctly yet beyond your intellectual capacity. >> > > Then he shows again the 'trace' of an incorrect simulation. > >> _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] >> >> Instructions from machine address 00002172 through >> machine address 0000217a are emulated. >> >> What instruction of DDD do you believe comes next? > > Assuming a correct simulation: > The next instruction would be that at 000015d2 in HHH. >> What instruction of DDD do you believe comes next? What instruction of DDD of DDD of DDD of DDD of DDD do you believe comes next? -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer