Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 13:40:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <vb7l68$3efl8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb4u1g$2u7sn$4@dont-email.me>
 <vb59cg$3057o$1@dont-email.me>
 <f0ff8a5345087a3b89853b26af12e38d433afc7b@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2024 20:40:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f5540fbd60b9a9e7d5f7c4b40526c50b";
	logging-data="3620520"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KbOtBvhe8FKG+Rr3aeM28"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:i3IfAK/ePULvIQAN0STH16xDEhM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <f0ff8a5345087a3b89853b26af12e38d433afc7b@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3487

On 9/3/2024 9:42 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Mon, 02 Sep 2024 16:06:24 -0500 schrieb 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.
> Which DDD does not.

DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its final halt state no matter what HHH does.

>>>> A halt decider never ever computes the mapping for the computation
>>>> that itself is contained within.
> Then it is not total.

Yes it is you are wrong.

>>>> 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.
> Which makes this pathological input a counterexample.

Which makes the pathological input a counter-example
to the false assumption that the direct execution of
a machine always has the same behavior as the machine
simulated by its pathological simulator.

>>>> 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.
>> It is emulating the exact same freaking machine code that the x86utm
>> operating system is emulating.

> It is not simulating the abort because of a static variable. Why?
> 

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   OutputString("This code is unreachable by DDD emulated by HHH");
}

>>> 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.

> Your HHH incorrectly changes behaviour.
> 

No you are wrong !!!

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