Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Philosophy of Computation: Three seem to agree how emulating termination analyzers are supposed to work Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 15:45:37 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 128 Message-ID: References: <114d7d0cb5266295ec2c9e9097158d78e5f51dea@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 22:45:38 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5e3d204d1939e67d6d9b2cbe8090f3d7"; logging-data="611174"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+vehaNxuEgFZ5OLK1liXtI" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:J3ph0hZDIaro5aXxw6xq09/+JXE= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241110-4, 11/10/2024), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <114d7d0cb5266295ec2c9e9097158d78e5f51dea@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 5915 On 11/10/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/10/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote: >> *The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks* >> >> 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 > > Right, if the correct (and thus complete) emulation of this precise > input would not halt. > That is what I have been saying for years. (even though there cannot be such a thing as the complete emulation of a non-terminating input). >> >> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> > > Which your H doesn't do. > It is a matter of objective fact H does abort its emulation and it does reject its input D as non-halting. I just ran the code and it does do this. https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >> >> Correct simulation is defined as D is emulated by H according to >> the semantics of the x86 language thus includes H emulating itself >> emulating D. > > And also means that it can not be aborted, as "stopping" in the middle > is not to the semantics of the x86 language. > Every H, HH, HHH, H1, HH1, and HHH1 (a) Predicts that its input would not stop running unless aborted. (b) Lets its input continue to run until completion. > An thus, your H fails to determine that the CORRECT emulation by H will > not terminate, since it doesn't do one. > >> >> I made D simpler so that the key essence of recursive simulation >> could be analyzed separately. ChatGPT totally understood this. > > Nope, your broke the rules of the field, and thus invalidates your proof. > > Either by passing the address of DDD to HHH implies passing the FULL > MEMORY that DDD is in (or at least every part accessed in the emulation > of DDD) and thus changed in your > >> >> void DDD() >> { >> HHH(DDD); >> return; >> } >> >> ChatGPT >> Simplified Analogy: >> Think of HHH as a "watchdog" that steps in during real execution >> to stop DDD() from running forever. But when HHH simulates DDD(), >> it's analyzing an "idealized" version of DDD() where nothing stops the >> recursion. In the simulation, DDD() is seen as endlessly recursive, so >> HHH concludes that it would not halt without external intervention. > > But DDD doesn't call an "ideaized" verision of HHH, 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 *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted* has ALWAYS been this idealized input. > it calls the exact > function defined as HHH, s0 your arguemet is based on false premises, > and thus is just a :OE/ > >> >> https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2 >> This link is live so you can try to convince ChatGPT that its wrong. >> >> On 11/3/2024 12:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>  > On 11/3/24 9:39 AM, olcott wrote: >>  >> >>  >> The finite string input to HHH specifies that HHH >>  >> MUST EMULATE ITSELF emulating DDD. >>  > >>  > Right, and it must CORRECTLY determine what an unbounded >>  > emulation of that input would do, even if its own programming >>  > only lets it emulate a part of that. >>  > >> >> *Breaking that down into its key element* >>  > [This bounded HHH] must CORRECTLY determine what >>  > an unbounded emulation of that input would do... >> >> When that input is unbounded that means it is never >> aborted at any level, otherwise it is bounded at some >> level thus not unbounded. >> > > No, because there aren't "levels" of emulation under consideration here. There sure the Hell are. *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted* *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted* *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted* Has always involved levels of simulation when H emulates itself emulating D > Only does the emulation that the top level HHH is doing, since > everything else is just fixed by the problem. > *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted* *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted* *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted* has always meant reject D -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer