Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS -- I only wanted to cross post this key break through once. Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 11:41:11 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 113 Message-ID: References: <3232d8a0cc7b5d4bba46321bf682c94573bf1b7c@i2pn2.org> <647fe917c6bc0cfc78083ccf927fe280acdf2f9d@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 18:41:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="038c6a2fd0ca42e5af4fa5df3c3c0f47"; logging-data="3566072"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/sNc5AcCkF+K3xucYcwzRS" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:LiOC0RO0IFo7ZXWYowSNfhgKsWo= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241018-6, 10/18/2024), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6492 On 10/18/2024 11:39 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/18/2024 9:41 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 18 Oct 2024 09:10:04 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 10/18/2024 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 10/17/24 11:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/2024 10:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/17/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/17/24 7:31 PM, olcott wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> When DDD is correctly emulated by HHH according to the semantics >>>>>>>>> of the x86 language DDD cannot possibly reach its own machine >>>>>>>>> address [00002183] no matter what HHH does. >>>>>>>>> +-->[00002172]-->[00002173]-->[00002175]-->[0000217a]--+ >> >>>>>>>> Except that 0000217a doesn't go to 00002172, but to 000015d2 >> >>>> The Emulating HHH sees those addresses at its begining and then never >>>> again. >>>> Then the HHH that it is emulating will see those addresses, but not the >>>> outer one that is doing that emulation of HHH. >>>> And so on. >>>> Which HHH do you think EVER gets back to 00002172? >>>> What instruction do you think that it emulates that would tell it to do >>>> so? >> >>>> At best the trace is: >>>> 00002172 00002173 00002175 0000217a conditional emulation of 00002172 >>>> conditional emulation of 00002173 conditional emulation of 00002175 >>>> conditional emulation of 0000217a CE of CE of 00002172 ... >>> OK great this is finally good progress. >> The more interesting part is HHH simulating itself, specifically the >> if(Root) check on line 502. >> > > That has nothing to do with any aspect of the emulation > until HHH has correctly emulated itself emulating DDD. > >>>> and if HHH decides to abort its emulation, it also should know that >>>> every level of condition emulation it say will also do the same thing, >>> If I understand his words correctly Mike has already disagreed with >>> this. >> He hasn't. >> >>> Message-ID: >>> On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>   > Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state (tape >>> contents >>>   > etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there. >>> This seems to indicate that the Turing machine UTM version of HHH can >>> somehow see each of the state transitions of the DDD resulting from >>> emulating its own Turing machine description emulating DDD. > >> Of course. It needs to, in order to simulate it. Strictly speaking >> it has no idea of its simulation of a simulation two levels down, >> only of the immediate simulation; the rest is just part of whatever >> program the simulated simulator is simulating, which happens to be >> itself. >> > > From the concrete execution trace of DDD emulated by HHH > according to the semantics of the x86 language people with > sufficient technical competence can see that the halt status > criteria that professor Sipser agreed to has been met. > > >     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >     stop running unless aborted then > >     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > > I will paraphrase this to use clearer language that directly applies > to HHH and DDD. > >     If emulating termination analyzer HHH emulates its input DDD >     according to the semantics of the x86 language (including HHH >     emulating itself emulating DDD) until HHH correctly determines >     that its emulated DDD would never stop running unless aborted >     then ... > >     HHH can abort its emulation of DDD and correctly report that DDD >     specifies a non-terminating sequence of x86 instructions. > >>> *Joes can't seem to understand this* >>> Only the outer-most HHH meets its abort criteria first, thus unless it >>> aborts as soon as it meets this criteria none of them will ever abort. > >> This is very simple to understand. Almost as simple as: even if only >> the outermost HHH didn't abort, it would still halt, > > Yet that is based on the factually incorrect assumption > that every instance of HHH does not use the exact same > machine code. > > Since you should know that this assumption is factually > incorrect I could it as flat out dishonestly on your part. > >> since it is >> simulating a halting program: the nested version will abort. >> >>>> and thus the call HHH at 0000217a will be returned from, > and HHH has >>>> no idea what will happen after that, so it KNOWS it is ignorant of the >>>> answer. > > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer